In the Interest of K.B., Jr., Minor Child
This text of In the Interest of K.B., Jr., Minor Child (In the Interest of K.B., Jr., Minor Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0987 Filed October 20, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF K.B. JR., Minor Child,
T.T., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Margaret Triner Olsen, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Rebecca C. Sharpe of Aitken, Aitken & Sharpe, P.C., attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ. 2
MULLINS, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.1 She argues the
State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence
and it is not in the child’s best interests to terminate her rights due to the closeness
of the child’s bond with the mother and half-siblings.
The child tested positive for marijuana at birth. In the first year of the child’s
life, the mother and father engaged in violent domestic disputes in the child’s
presence. The child has been present during two car chases, one involving police,
and one police raid on the mother’s home due to drug trafficking. The mother has
struggled at times to set meaningful boundaries with the father, going so far as to
violate the safety plan set in place by allowing the father to live in her home.
Although she has participated in some drug testing, the mother refused sweat-
patch testing and failed to appear for multiple requested tests.
Since the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved in
the child’s life, the case has progressed to reunification planning twice. The first
reunification effort ended when the mother’s home was raided and she was
arrested on a drug charge. The second time, the mother absconded with the child
during what was supposed to be an overnight visit.
The child was adjudicated in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.2(6)(c)(1)–(2), (n), and (o) (2019). The mother’s parental rights were
terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2020). The
mother appeals.
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 3
We review terminations of parental rights de novo. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d
703, 706 (Iowa 2010). “We are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact,
but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.”
Id. at 706. The State bears the burden to prove grounds for termination by clear
and convincing evidence, which exists if there are no “serious or substantial doubts
as to the correctness or conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. at 706–
07 (quoting In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000)). “On appeal, we may
affirm the juvenile court’s termination order on any ground that we find supported
by clear and convincing evidence.”2 Id. at 707. “Our primary concern is the best
interests of the child.” In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
The mother contests only the last element of Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h), that “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot
be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at
the present time.”3
The mother has not consistently complied with drug-testing requirements.
DHS providers noted the mother’s clothing smelled like marijuana when she would
appear for visits. Over time, the mother participated in treatment and some
urinalysis testing that showed she was not using any substances. But she also
refused to participate in sweat-patch testing and failed to appear for other
requested testing. The mother has also posted videos on social media showing
her “smoking cigars and simulating marijuana use.” The juvenile court noted,
2 We choose to rely on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). 3 The other three elements are proved by the child’s age, adjudication as a child in need of assistance, and removal from parental custody since July 2019 with no trial period at home lasting thirty days or more. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(1)–(3). 4
“[s]he is either continuing to use marijuana, but to a much less frequent extent, or
she wants others to believe she is still using marijuana. Both reflect very poorly
upon her as a mother because drug exposure was an adjudicatory harm in this
case.”
The mother has struggled with being honest with her providers and
advocates. She refused to sign release documents that would allow her therapist
and substance-abuse treatment providers to speak with DHS about her progress.
Although the mother’s therapist testified she has experienced growth and
internalized skills to manage her behavior, DHS has no way to verify that treatment
providers have been given accurate information from the mother. The mother also
made false abuse allegations about the spouse of a relative who served as a
placement for the child, leading to the child’s placement in foster care. Although
the mother has secured housing that is appropriate for the child, she refused to
provide evidence that she is able to maintain that housing without assistance or
that she is actually the person named on the lease until the termination hearing.
The record reveals that the mother and child share a bond. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(3)(c). However, the child has progressed socially and behaviorally while
residing with the foster family. Prior concerns related to the child biting providers
and other children and having meltdowns have been relieved. The child is
integrated into the foster family, who is interested in adoption. The foster family
has also engaged with the parent of a half-sibling to ensure the maintenance and
growth of the sibling relationship.
We appreciate that the mother loves the child and has engaged in some
services to work toward reunification. But we must review the record to determine 5
whether the child could have been returned to the mother’s care at the time of
termination. Id. § 232.116(1)(h)(4). At the time of termination, the mother failed to
allow her mental-health and substance-abuse providers to openly communicate
with DHS, which apparently may have been favorable to her. Although the mother
insisted she no longer used illegal substances, she projected an image of use for
the public. She repeatedly placed her own desires over the needs of the child by
fabricating abuse allegations to have the child removed from a familial placement,
refusing to participate in drug testing out of frustration with DHS, and allowing
people with a history of drug use and domestic violence to be around the child.
This child deserves permanency now and we will not “ask[] [the child] to
continuously wait for a stable biological parent, particularly at such [a] tender
age[].” D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. On our de novo review of the record, we find
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of K.B., Jr., Minor Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-kb-jr-minor-child-iowactapp-2021.