IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1551 Filed January 8, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF J.E., Minor Child,
A.E., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Daniel Kitchen,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Larry J. Brock of Brock Law Office, Washington, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Katie E.M. Lujan of Lloyd, McConnell, Davis & Lujan, L.L.P., Washington,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ. 2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She claims she
should have been granted an additional six months to achieve reunification with
the child. We find an extension is not warranted and termination is in the best
interests of the child. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
T.E. is the mother of J.E., born in 2015. The mother’s husband, C.S., is the
legal father of J.E. A.M. is the child’s biological father. Both fathers have
consented to termination of their parental rights.
The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS) in August 2016 due to the mother’s use of methamphetamine while caring
for the child. The mother began voluntary services with DHS. On October 6, 2017,
the child was placed with C.S. on a voluntary basis after the mother tested positive
for methamphetamine. The mother later contested the removal, and the court
ordered the child’s placement in C.S.’s care. In late 2017, the paternity of the child
was called into question by the mother. On December 10, the child was
adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA). Paternity testing was ordered.
In January 2018, the parties stipulated to placing the child with the maternal
grandmother.1
1 Before the child’s removal, the mother and child sometimes stayed with the maternal grandmother, including for several months between 2016 and 2017. The mother continued to stay at the maternal grandmother’s house periodically throughout the CINA proceedings. 3
In February, C.S. was eliminated as the biological father; in August, A.M.
was confirmed as the biological father. C.S. eventually withdrew from the child’s
life.
The mother struggled with her substance-abuse problems throughout the
juvenile proceedings. She was arrested on drug charges in the summer of 2018.
She participated in several substance-abuse evaluations but did not follow through
with recommended treatment, at times claiming her chronic pain medication
precluded her participation in treatment. She missed other substance-abuse
evaluations and delayed scheduling evaluations or waited until service workers
scheduled them for her.
The mother initially attended recommended mental-health treatment for
anxiety. An October 2017 mental-health evaluation diagnosed the mother with
several additional mental-health issues. She stopped going to her therapy and, in
June 2018, told service providers she did not like the available psychiatrists and
wanted a medication prescription.
Throughout the case, reports from the Family Safety, Risk, and
Permanency (FSRP) services worker indicated the mother delayed calling
treatment programs, occasionally appeared to be under the influence of illegal
substances, and was inconsistent in her efforts to parent the child.
Finally, in January 2019, as a requirement of her probation for forgery and
drug convictions, the mother began an inpatient-treatment program. She tested
positive for marijuana and amphetamines when admitted. While in the program,
she participated in substance-abuse and mental-health counselling and did not
test positive for illegal substances. She began family treatment court in February. 4
On March 6, the mother was discharged from the inpatient program for
having an unauthorized vaping device in her room.2 She began an outpatient
treatment program following her discharge. The mother maintained sobriety
through the termination hearing in April and made progress in her ability to care
for the child.
Generally, the mother was not consistent in caring for and spending time
with the child, even when both mother and child were staying at the maternal
grandmother’s house. The mother did not have consistent housing outside her
parents’ house. She was not employed at any point during the case, and was
denied Social Security disability benefits. She did not have a driver’s license or
reliable transportation. Despite offers of help from FSRP, the mother expressed
no interest in finding employment or obtaining her license until just before the
termination hearing.
The termination hearing was held April 4. In May, the State petitioned to
reopen the record to submit additional evidence. On June 28, another hearing with
additional testimony was held. The mother had relapsed following the initial
termination hearing. She had also missed multiple mental-health appointments
and stopped attending family treatment court. The mother attributed her failure to
attend appointments to her transportation difficulties.
On September 6, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).3 She appeals.
2 The mother had been warned that she could not have the vaping device on the premises. She was six days shy of a successful discharge. 3 The child was three years of age at the time of both termination hearings. 5
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The paramount concern in termination proceedings
is the best interests of the child. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
On appeal, the mother does not contest the grounds for termination.
Rather, she argues the court should have given her six more months to achieve
reunification with her child and termination is not in the best interests of the child.
Because she does not dispute the existence of grounds for termination, we
need not discuss this first step of our three-step analysis. See In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Even after statutory grounds for termination have
been established, “we must still determine whether termination is in the child[’s]
best interests. A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 776. This requires considering the child’s
safety; the best placement to further the long-term nurturing and growth of the
child; and the physical, mental, and emotional needs of the child. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). We also consider “the ability of the parent to properly care for the
child and the presence of another family to provide the care.” In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 708 (Iowa 2010). The child deserves constant, responsible, and
reliable parenting in a stable home. A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 777.
The child has been out of the mother’s care since October 2017, and in the
care of the maternal grandmother since January 2018. The child has some special
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1551 Filed January 8, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF J.E., Minor Child,
A.E., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Daniel Kitchen,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Larry J. Brock of Brock Law Office, Washington, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Katie E.M. Lujan of Lloyd, McConnell, Davis & Lujan, L.L.P., Washington,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ. 2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She claims she
should have been granted an additional six months to achieve reunification with
the child. We find an extension is not warranted and termination is in the best
interests of the child. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
T.E. is the mother of J.E., born in 2015. The mother’s husband, C.S., is the
legal father of J.E. A.M. is the child’s biological father. Both fathers have
consented to termination of their parental rights.
The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS) in August 2016 due to the mother’s use of methamphetamine while caring
for the child. The mother began voluntary services with DHS. On October 6, 2017,
the child was placed with C.S. on a voluntary basis after the mother tested positive
for methamphetamine. The mother later contested the removal, and the court
ordered the child’s placement in C.S.’s care. In late 2017, the paternity of the child
was called into question by the mother. On December 10, the child was
adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA). Paternity testing was ordered.
In January 2018, the parties stipulated to placing the child with the maternal
grandmother.1
1 Before the child’s removal, the mother and child sometimes stayed with the maternal grandmother, including for several months between 2016 and 2017. The mother continued to stay at the maternal grandmother’s house periodically throughout the CINA proceedings. 3
In February, C.S. was eliminated as the biological father; in August, A.M.
was confirmed as the biological father. C.S. eventually withdrew from the child’s
life.
The mother struggled with her substance-abuse problems throughout the
juvenile proceedings. She was arrested on drug charges in the summer of 2018.
She participated in several substance-abuse evaluations but did not follow through
with recommended treatment, at times claiming her chronic pain medication
precluded her participation in treatment. She missed other substance-abuse
evaluations and delayed scheduling evaluations or waited until service workers
scheduled them for her.
The mother initially attended recommended mental-health treatment for
anxiety. An October 2017 mental-health evaluation diagnosed the mother with
several additional mental-health issues. She stopped going to her therapy and, in
June 2018, told service providers she did not like the available psychiatrists and
wanted a medication prescription.
Throughout the case, reports from the Family Safety, Risk, and
Permanency (FSRP) services worker indicated the mother delayed calling
treatment programs, occasionally appeared to be under the influence of illegal
substances, and was inconsistent in her efforts to parent the child.
Finally, in January 2019, as a requirement of her probation for forgery and
drug convictions, the mother began an inpatient-treatment program. She tested
positive for marijuana and amphetamines when admitted. While in the program,
she participated in substance-abuse and mental-health counselling and did not
test positive for illegal substances. She began family treatment court in February. 4
On March 6, the mother was discharged from the inpatient program for
having an unauthorized vaping device in her room.2 She began an outpatient
treatment program following her discharge. The mother maintained sobriety
through the termination hearing in April and made progress in her ability to care
for the child.
Generally, the mother was not consistent in caring for and spending time
with the child, even when both mother and child were staying at the maternal
grandmother’s house. The mother did not have consistent housing outside her
parents’ house. She was not employed at any point during the case, and was
denied Social Security disability benefits. She did not have a driver’s license or
reliable transportation. Despite offers of help from FSRP, the mother expressed
no interest in finding employment or obtaining her license until just before the
termination hearing.
The termination hearing was held April 4. In May, the State petitioned to
reopen the record to submit additional evidence. On June 28, another hearing with
additional testimony was held. The mother had relapsed following the initial
termination hearing. She had also missed multiple mental-health appointments
and stopped attending family treatment court. The mother attributed her failure to
attend appointments to her transportation difficulties.
On September 6, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).3 She appeals.
2 The mother had been warned that she could not have the vaping device on the premises. She was six days shy of a successful discharge. 3 The child was three years of age at the time of both termination hearings. 5
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The paramount concern in termination proceedings
is the best interests of the child. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
On appeal, the mother does not contest the grounds for termination.
Rather, she argues the court should have given her six more months to achieve
reunification with her child and termination is not in the best interests of the child.
Because she does not dispute the existence of grounds for termination, we
need not discuss this first step of our three-step analysis. See In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Even after statutory grounds for termination have
been established, “we must still determine whether termination is in the child[’s]
best interests. A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 776. This requires considering the child’s
safety; the best placement to further the long-term nurturing and growth of the
child; and the physical, mental, and emotional needs of the child. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). We also consider “the ability of the parent to properly care for the
child and the presence of another family to provide the care.” In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 708 (Iowa 2010). The child deserves constant, responsible, and
reliable parenting in a stable home. A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 777.
The child has been out of the mother’s care since October 2017, and in the
care of the maternal grandmother since January 2018. The child has some special
behavioral needs, and the grandmother has taken steps to set up necessary
testing and care. Throughout the juvenile proceedings, the mother has struggled
to place the child’s needs above her own, including a relapse a month after the 6
initial termination hearing. “We do not ‘gamble with the child[ ]’s future’ by asking
them to continuously wait for a stable biological parent, particularly at such [a]
tender age[ ].” D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 (citation omitted). The record shows the
mother has been unable to establish she can be a constant and reliable parent.
We find termination is in the best interests of the child.
The mother claims the court should have granted her an additional six
months to achieve reunification.4 In order to grant an extension, the court must be
able to “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral
changes” that will occur leading the court to conclude the reasons removal will no
longer exist in six months. Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). The mother has been
offered services for more than three years, the child has been removed from the
mother’s care for two years, and recent signs of progress were followed in short
order by the mother relapsing and ceasing to attend substance-abuse and mental-
health treatment. The mother’s inability to follow through with treatment and
remain sober in the community throughout this case—in particular relapsing post-
termination hearing—do not instill confidence in her ability to achieve the changes
necessary for reunification with the child. See A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 778
(“[E]vidence of the parent’s past performance . . . may be indicative of the quality
of the future care that parent is capable of providing.” (citation omitted)). We find
the evidence does not support an additional six months to work toward
reunification.
AFFIRMED.
4 The mother already received a six-month extension in September 2018.