IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1081 Filed November 4, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF H.Q., Minor Child,
K.Q., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt,
Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Morgan Wilson of Iowa Legal Aid, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Andrew Thalacker of Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Danilson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020). 2
DANILSON, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
We find that granting the mother an extension of time is not in the child’s best
interests. Also, termination of the mother’s parental rights, rather than placing the
child in a guardianship, is in the child’s best interests. We affirm the decision of
the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
K.Q. is the mother and S.Q. is the father of H.Q., who was born in 2017.1
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family
in late 2018 due to the mother’s mental-health and substance-abuse problems.
The mother tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and marijuana.
In October 2018, the mother agreed to place the child with the maternal
grandparents. She began a substance-abuse treatment program.
On February 29, 2019, the child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance
(CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2018). The child
was formally removed from the mother’s care at that time and placed in the home
of the maternal grandparents.
Despite relapses in June and September, on October 22, 2019, the juvenile
court found the mother was making progress in addressing her substance-abuse
problems. The court deferred permanency, stating, “An additional three to six
months will allow [the mother] to prove to the Court that she can remain sober and
that sobriety is her goal.” The mother relapsed again in December 2019. On
1 The father had very little involvement during the course of the juvenile court proceedings. He has not appealed the termination of his parental rights. 3
January 22, 2020, the court determined the matter should be set for a termination
hearing. The court found “[the mother’s] recent relapse proves that her sobriety is
incredibly fragile and she must continue to work toward lengthy sobriety.”
A petition for termination of parental rights was filed on March 2, 2020. The
mother had positive drug tests in March, May, and June. The termination hearing
was held on July 21. The mother’s DHS worker testified the mother was
inconsistent in participating in substance-abuse treatment and mental-health
counseling. In addition, the mother did not have stable housing, employment, or
transportation. The mother noted that due to COVID-19, the substance-abuse
treatment program did not have group meetings, although she was able to continue
to have individual meetings. Also, she could not have face-to-face meetings with
the child for several months. DHS offered video visits during this time.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under section
232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l) (2020). The court stated:
[The mother] has been unable to remain sober for more than 3 to 4 months at a time. She has continued to use methamphetamine even while attending substance abuse treatment. She has been dishonest and manipulative concerning her use. Given her setbacks concerning the relapses, she has also been unable to significantly address her mental health concerns. She has been unable to become employed and self-sufficient.
The court determined termination was in the child’s best interests. The court found
a guardianship would not be appropriate because it could be a significant amount
of time, if ever, before the mother would be capable of caring for the child. The
mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision. 4
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear
and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear
and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to
the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary
concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa
2014). Here, the mother has not challenged any of the grounds for termination but
rather claims the juvenile court erred in not granting her additional time or,
alternatively, failing to order a guardianship in lieu of termination.
III. Extension of Time
The mother claims the juvenile court should have given her additional time
to work on reunification. She asserts there was a recommendation for her to attend
group substance-abuse treatment meetings but due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the facility where she was receiving treatment no longer had group meetings. She
was able to continue with individual substance-abuse treatment sessions.
Additionally, the mother did not have face-to-face visitation with the child for
several months due to the pandemic. The mother states the progress of her case
was stalled because of the pandemic, so she should receive more time.
The juvenile court may decide to not terminate parental rights if it finds there
is clear and convincing evidence that CINA proceedings should continue and
enters an order to extend the time for reunification in accordance with section
232.104(2)(b). Iowa Code § 232.117(5). The court may continue the proceedings 5
for an additional six months if the court finds “the need for removal . . . will no
longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Id. § 232.104(2)(b).
“[T]he onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was beyond the parents’ or the
court’s ability to control.” In re A.H., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2020 WL 4201762, at
*8 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). During this time, services were still offered to the mother,
and she was able to participate in services. The mother had the ability to continue
treatment during the pandemic, although the facility was not having group
meetings, as the facility continued to offer individual sessions. Concerning
visitation, the DHS worker testified face-to-face visits were not offered from about
March 20 to June 1. The child was able to see the mother by video during this
time.
On the issue of additional time, the juvenile court stated, “[The mother] has
failed to make significant progress during the time period of this case. Currently
her child has been removed from her custody for 21 months, and the child was 15
months old when the removal began.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1081 Filed November 4, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF H.Q., Minor Child,
K.Q., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt,
Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Morgan Wilson of Iowa Legal Aid, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Andrew Thalacker of Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Danilson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020). 2
DANILSON, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
We find that granting the mother an extension of time is not in the child’s best
interests. Also, termination of the mother’s parental rights, rather than placing the
child in a guardianship, is in the child’s best interests. We affirm the decision of
the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
K.Q. is the mother and S.Q. is the father of H.Q., who was born in 2017.1
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family
in late 2018 due to the mother’s mental-health and substance-abuse problems.
The mother tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and marijuana.
In October 2018, the mother agreed to place the child with the maternal
grandparents. She began a substance-abuse treatment program.
On February 29, 2019, the child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance
(CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2018). The child
was formally removed from the mother’s care at that time and placed in the home
of the maternal grandparents.
Despite relapses in June and September, on October 22, 2019, the juvenile
court found the mother was making progress in addressing her substance-abuse
problems. The court deferred permanency, stating, “An additional three to six
months will allow [the mother] to prove to the Court that she can remain sober and
that sobriety is her goal.” The mother relapsed again in December 2019. On
1 The father had very little involvement during the course of the juvenile court proceedings. He has not appealed the termination of his parental rights. 3
January 22, 2020, the court determined the matter should be set for a termination
hearing. The court found “[the mother’s] recent relapse proves that her sobriety is
incredibly fragile and she must continue to work toward lengthy sobriety.”
A petition for termination of parental rights was filed on March 2, 2020. The
mother had positive drug tests in March, May, and June. The termination hearing
was held on July 21. The mother’s DHS worker testified the mother was
inconsistent in participating in substance-abuse treatment and mental-health
counseling. In addition, the mother did not have stable housing, employment, or
transportation. The mother noted that due to COVID-19, the substance-abuse
treatment program did not have group meetings, although she was able to continue
to have individual meetings. Also, she could not have face-to-face meetings with
the child for several months. DHS offered video visits during this time.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under section
232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l) (2020). The court stated:
[The mother] has been unable to remain sober for more than 3 to 4 months at a time. She has continued to use methamphetamine even while attending substance abuse treatment. She has been dishonest and manipulative concerning her use. Given her setbacks concerning the relapses, she has also been unable to significantly address her mental health concerns. She has been unable to become employed and self-sufficient.
The court determined termination was in the child’s best interests. The court found
a guardianship would not be appropriate because it could be a significant amount
of time, if ever, before the mother would be capable of caring for the child. The
mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision. 4
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear
and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear
and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to
the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary
concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa
2014). Here, the mother has not challenged any of the grounds for termination but
rather claims the juvenile court erred in not granting her additional time or,
alternatively, failing to order a guardianship in lieu of termination.
III. Extension of Time
The mother claims the juvenile court should have given her additional time
to work on reunification. She asserts there was a recommendation for her to attend
group substance-abuse treatment meetings but due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the facility where she was receiving treatment no longer had group meetings. She
was able to continue with individual substance-abuse treatment sessions.
Additionally, the mother did not have face-to-face visitation with the child for
several months due to the pandemic. The mother states the progress of her case
was stalled because of the pandemic, so she should receive more time.
The juvenile court may decide to not terminate parental rights if it finds there
is clear and convincing evidence that CINA proceedings should continue and
enters an order to extend the time for reunification in accordance with section
232.104(2)(b). Iowa Code § 232.117(5). The court may continue the proceedings 5
for an additional six months if the court finds “the need for removal . . . will no
longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Id. § 232.104(2)(b).
“[T]he onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was beyond the parents’ or the
court’s ability to control.” In re A.H., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2020 WL 4201762, at
*8 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). During this time, services were still offered to the mother,
and she was able to participate in services. The mother had the ability to continue
treatment during the pandemic, although the facility was not having group
meetings, as the facility continued to offer individual sessions. Concerning
visitation, the DHS worker testified face-to-face visits were not offered from about
March 20 to June 1. The child was able to see the mother by video during this
time.
On the issue of additional time, the juvenile court stated, “[The mother] has
failed to make significant progress during the time period of this case. Currently
her child has been removed from her custody for 21 months, and the child was 15
months old when the removal began. [The mother] also suffers from a lack of
honesty.” The court notes the mother has “never been able to string together
months of sobriety.” We are unable to make a finding that “the need for
removal . . . will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” See
Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We are sensitive to the frustration and difficulties
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and such difficulties may give rise to
continuances or extensions. However, here the mother was already granted a
delay of about three months by the juvenile court and the mother relapsed. “It is
well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has
proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a 6
parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.”
A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 777 (quoting In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010)). We
agree with the court’s conclusion that a further extension of time is not in the child’s
best interests.
IV. Guardianship
The mother contends that rather than terminating her parental rights, the
juvenile court should have placed the child in a guardianship with the maternal
grandparents due to the closeness of the bond between the mother and child. The
maternal grandfather testified he and the maternal grandmother would like to have
the child in a guardianship because they felt this would give the mother incentive
to work toward sobriety. He stated that if the mother achieved sobriety in a year
or two, she could be reunited with the child. The maternal grandfather also testified
he and the maternal grandmother were willing to adopt the child if the mother’s
parental rights were terminated.
The Iowa Supreme Court has stated:
Importantly, “a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). If the court transferred guardianship and custody to the child’s maternal grandparents, they would have to report to the court at least annually, and the guardianship would not terminate until the child reaches the age of majority . . . . See Iowa Code § 232.117(6)–(8) (setting out requirements for the guardian to report to the court); id. § 232.118(3) (providing that “[t]he authority of a guardian appointed by the court terminates when the child reaches the age of majority or is adopted”). The court could also, on its own motion, later remove the maternal grandparents and appoint a different guardian. See id. § 232.118(1).
In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 447–48 (Iowa 2018). 7
The juvenile court considered a guardianship with the maternal
grandparents and found it would not be appropriate under the facts in this case.
The court found, “The child at issue is less than three years old and cannot wait a
significant period of time for her mother to become capable of being the child’s
custodian.” The child needs stability, rather than the uncertainty that would come
from a guardianship. We conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights is in
the child’s best interests.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.