IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1114 Filed September 4, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., G.S., and D.L., Minor Children,
C.S., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick J. McAvan,
Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Michael S. Fisher of Fisher Law Office, New Sharon, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Misty White, Sigourney, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ. 2
AHLERS, Presiding Judge.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the mother and fathers
of three children, born in 2013, 2017, and 2018. Only the mother appeals. She
contends termination was not in the children’s best interests and she should be
given six additional months to achieve reunification.
We conduct de novo review of orders terminating parental rights. In re Z.K.,
973 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022). The juvenile court’s fact findings do not bind us,
but we give them weight, especially in assessing witness credibility. Id.
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services became involved with
this family three times before the current proceedings—in 2017 due to the middle
child being born with illegal drugs in the child’s system, in 2018 due to the youngest
child being born with illegal drugs in the child’s system, and in 2019 due to
domestic violence inflicted on the mother by the father of the youngest two
children. The 2019 incident led to children-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)
proceedings. The proceedings were successfully closed in 2020 after the mother
underwent both mental-health and substance-use treatment.
Unfortunately, her success was short-lived. The department got involved
with the family again in 2023 due to the mother’s methamphetamine use, her
physical abuse of the youngest child, and another incident of domestic violence
against the mother by the father of the youngest two children. Because of these
problems, the children were removed and CINA proceedings started. Unlike in the
earlier CINA proceedings, the mother failed to address both her mental-health and
substance-use issues. Due to the lack of progress, the children never returned
home, and termination-of-parental-rights proceedings followed. Following a trial, 3
as noted, the juvenile court terminated the rights of all parents, and the mother
appeals.
Our review of termination-of-parental-rights cases follows a three-step
process of determining (1) whether a statutory ground for termination has been
established, (2) whether termination is in the children’s best interests, and
(3) whether any permissive exception should be applied to preclude termination.
In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021). We do not address any step a parent
does not challenge. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). After addressing
any challenged steps, we then consider any additional claims raised by a parent.
In re J.K.-O., No. 24-0678, 2024 WL 3290381, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 3, 2024).
I. Best Interests
As to the three-step process, the mother challenges only the second step.
She contends the State failed to prove it is in the children’s best interests to
terminate her rights because she has a close relationship with the children. While
we acknowledge the mother has a close relationship with the children, our review
of the record convinces us that it is still in the children’s best interests to terminate
her rights.
The best-interests step in the termination analysis requires us to “give
primary consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering
the long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental,
and emotional condition and needs of the child[ren].” See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)
(2024). The mother’s instability impedes her ability to provide for the children’s
safety, promote their nurturing and growth, and meet their needs. 4
The mother has had recurring substance-use issues for years. Unlike in the
prior CINA proceedings, the mother has not addressed those issues this time. She
has refused all drug testing requested by the department. The two times she
tested during the fourteen months between the children’s removal and the
termination trial were the two times she completed substance-abuse evaluations.
Both times she tested positive for illegal drugs. And both evaluations
recommended inpatient treatment—treatment the mother did not undertake. In
her testimony at the termination trial, the mother admitted ongoing
methamphetamine use, including as recently as two days before the trial. The
mother’s unmitigated methamphetamine addiction alone supports a finding that
termination of her rights is in the children’s best interests. See In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 776 (Iowa 2012) (“We have long recognized that an unresolved,
severe, and chronic drug addiction can render a parent unfit to raise children.”).
But there’s more.
The mother has also checked out in terms of complying with services. She
declined to participate in solution-based programming offered to her. She also
declined to obtain a mental-health evaluation despite a history of mental-health
issues and the department’s direction for her to obtain an evaluation. See In re
D.H., No. 18-1552, 2019 WL 156668, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2019) (collecting
cases and finding failure to meaningfully address mental-health issues to be a
basis for terminating parental rights).
Overall instability is also a problem. Throughout the months leading up to
the termination trial, the mother has incurred a significant number of drug-related
criminal charges that make her future freedom uncertain. She also has income 5
instability. While she lists her employment as being a home-health aide, she has
admitted to service providers that one source of her income is prostitution. This
not only subjects the mother to potential harm, but also to further incarceration.
The mother also has housing instability in that she is significantly behind on her
rent and is at risk of being evicted from her home. She has let an individual stay
at her residence who is known to be a safety risk. This overall instability has
resulted in the mother never progressing to anything less restrictive than
supervised visits. See In re S.L., No. 19-0107, 2019 WL 1055689, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. Mar. 6, 2019) (finding a child cannot be returned to a parent’s custody when
the parent has failed to progress past fully supervised visits).
The topic of visits is also an area of concern. The mother has missed a
significant number of visits with the children, which has been hard on the children.
While the children’s angst over missed visits is an indication of the closeness of
their relationships with the mother, it also demonstrates how devastating the
mother’s instability is to the children. And, when visits are held, the interactions
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1114 Filed September 4, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., G.S., and D.L., Minor Children,
C.S., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick J. McAvan,
Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Michael S. Fisher of Fisher Law Office, New Sharon, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Misty White, Sigourney, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ. 2
AHLERS, Presiding Judge.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the mother and fathers
of three children, born in 2013, 2017, and 2018. Only the mother appeals. She
contends termination was not in the children’s best interests and she should be
given six additional months to achieve reunification.
We conduct de novo review of orders terminating parental rights. In re Z.K.,
973 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022). The juvenile court’s fact findings do not bind us,
but we give them weight, especially in assessing witness credibility. Id.
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services became involved with
this family three times before the current proceedings—in 2017 due to the middle
child being born with illegal drugs in the child’s system, in 2018 due to the youngest
child being born with illegal drugs in the child’s system, and in 2019 due to
domestic violence inflicted on the mother by the father of the youngest two
children. The 2019 incident led to children-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)
proceedings. The proceedings were successfully closed in 2020 after the mother
underwent both mental-health and substance-use treatment.
Unfortunately, her success was short-lived. The department got involved
with the family again in 2023 due to the mother’s methamphetamine use, her
physical abuse of the youngest child, and another incident of domestic violence
against the mother by the father of the youngest two children. Because of these
problems, the children were removed and CINA proceedings started. Unlike in the
earlier CINA proceedings, the mother failed to address both her mental-health and
substance-use issues. Due to the lack of progress, the children never returned
home, and termination-of-parental-rights proceedings followed. Following a trial, 3
as noted, the juvenile court terminated the rights of all parents, and the mother
appeals.
Our review of termination-of-parental-rights cases follows a three-step
process of determining (1) whether a statutory ground for termination has been
established, (2) whether termination is in the children’s best interests, and
(3) whether any permissive exception should be applied to preclude termination.
In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021). We do not address any step a parent
does not challenge. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). After addressing
any challenged steps, we then consider any additional claims raised by a parent.
In re J.K.-O., No. 24-0678, 2024 WL 3290381, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 3, 2024).
I. Best Interests
As to the three-step process, the mother challenges only the second step.
She contends the State failed to prove it is in the children’s best interests to
terminate her rights because she has a close relationship with the children. While
we acknowledge the mother has a close relationship with the children, our review
of the record convinces us that it is still in the children’s best interests to terminate
her rights.
The best-interests step in the termination analysis requires us to “give
primary consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering
the long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental,
and emotional condition and needs of the child[ren].” See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)
(2024). The mother’s instability impedes her ability to provide for the children’s
safety, promote their nurturing and growth, and meet their needs. 4
The mother has had recurring substance-use issues for years. Unlike in the
prior CINA proceedings, the mother has not addressed those issues this time. She
has refused all drug testing requested by the department. The two times she
tested during the fourteen months between the children’s removal and the
termination trial were the two times she completed substance-abuse evaluations.
Both times she tested positive for illegal drugs. And both evaluations
recommended inpatient treatment—treatment the mother did not undertake. In
her testimony at the termination trial, the mother admitted ongoing
methamphetamine use, including as recently as two days before the trial. The
mother’s unmitigated methamphetamine addiction alone supports a finding that
termination of her rights is in the children’s best interests. See In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 776 (Iowa 2012) (“We have long recognized that an unresolved,
severe, and chronic drug addiction can render a parent unfit to raise children.”).
But there’s more.
The mother has also checked out in terms of complying with services. She
declined to participate in solution-based programming offered to her. She also
declined to obtain a mental-health evaluation despite a history of mental-health
issues and the department’s direction for her to obtain an evaluation. See In re
D.H., No. 18-1552, 2019 WL 156668, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2019) (collecting
cases and finding failure to meaningfully address mental-health issues to be a
basis for terminating parental rights).
Overall instability is also a problem. Throughout the months leading up to
the termination trial, the mother has incurred a significant number of drug-related
criminal charges that make her future freedom uncertain. She also has income 5
instability. While she lists her employment as being a home-health aide, she has
admitted to service providers that one source of her income is prostitution. This
not only subjects the mother to potential harm, but also to further incarceration.
The mother also has housing instability in that she is significantly behind on her
rent and is at risk of being evicted from her home. She has let an individual stay
at her residence who is known to be a safety risk. This overall instability has
resulted in the mother never progressing to anything less restrictive than
supervised visits. See In re S.L., No. 19-0107, 2019 WL 1055689, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. Mar. 6, 2019) (finding a child cannot be returned to a parent’s custody when
the parent has failed to progress past fully supervised visits).
The topic of visits is also an area of concern. The mother has missed a
significant number of visits with the children, which has been hard on the children.
While the children’s angst over missed visits is an indication of the closeness of
their relationships with the mother, it also demonstrates how devastating the
mother’s instability is to the children. And, when visits are held, the interactions
have often been unhealthy, as the mother has used the visits to tell the children
about adult topics such as rehab and her claims that the department has destroyed
the family.
For all of these reasons, we find it is in the children’s best interests to
terminate the mother’s parental rights. The children deserve stability now and
should not have to wait to see if or when the mother will be able to meet their
needs. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (“[W]e cannot deprive a
child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for termination under 6
section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be
able to provide a stable home for the child.” (quoting P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 40)).
II. Additional Time
The mother’s final argument is that she should be given an additional six
months to work toward reunification. The Code permits us to forego termination
and give the mother the additional six months she requests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.117(5) (permitting the court to enter a permanency order under
section 232.104 if it does not terminate a parent’s rights); see also id.
§ 232.104(2)(b) (permitting entry of a permanency order giving a parent an
additional six months to eliminate the need for removal of the children). But in
order to exercise this option, we must be able to “enumerate the specific factors,
conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the
determination that the need for removal of the child[ren] from the child[ren]’s home
will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Id.
§ 232.104(2)(b).
The mother relies on the fact that she was scheduled to go to substance-
use treatment the week after the termination trial. We echo the statements made
by the juvenile court and everyone else who spoke on the topic at the termination
trial in saying that we commend the mother for taking that step and hope that she
carries through with her stated plans to address her addiction. But, like the juvenile
court, we are not persuaded that those plans warrant granting the mother’s request
for additional time. First, her efforts are too late. See In re D.M., 516 N.W.2d 888,
891 (Iowa 1994) (finding efforts “of very recent origin” to be an unpersuasive
“eleventh hour attempt to prevent termination”); In re K.A., No. 20-0979, 2020 WL 7
5946114, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2020) (“[E]leventh hour attempts do not
warrant an extension of time or prevent termination of [parental] rights.”); In re B.S.,
No. 12-1609, 2012 WL 5534169, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2012) (“The parents’
eleventh hour attempts to prevent termination by engaging in services do not
overcome their years of addiction and instability.”). Second, evidence of plans for
efforts in the future when no progress has been made in the past is not sufficient
to permit us to make a finding that the need for removal will no longer exist after a
six-month extension. It is simply too speculative. As there is no evidence in the
record that would permit us to conclude that the need for removal will not exist at
the end of a six-month extension, we agree with the juvenile court that such
extension is not warranted.
III. Conclusion
Termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.
There is insufficient evidence to allow us to conclude that the need for removal of
the children would no longer exist at the end of a six-month extension, so we agree
with the juvenile court that such an extension is not warranted. Accordingly, we
affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights.