In the Interest of K.S., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: January 11, 2023
• Docket: 22-1765
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1765 Filed January 11, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF K.S., Minor Child,

S.C., Mother Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin A. Parker,

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.

AFFIRMED.

Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant

mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Magdalena B. Reese of Juvenile Public Defender Office, Des Moines,

attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in

July 2020.1 She challenges the State’s proof of the grounds for termination and

asks for additional time to reunite with the child. After a de novo review of the

record, see In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2020), we affirm.

The child came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS) in April 2021 when the father physically assaulted the

mother in the child’s presence. After the father tested positive for

methamphetamine that July, the parents left the state with the child. The juvenile

court issued an order to take the child into immediate custody once found.

The family was found in Kentucky, and they returned to Iowa in September

2021. Testing revealed that the child was exposed to methamphetamine, and the

juvenile court adjudicated her a child in need of assistance (CINA). At first, the

mother participated in services to address her mental-health and substance-abuse

issues. But she disengaged with services when she went to live with the father

after his December release from jail.

When several months passed without the parents making notable progress,

the State petitioned to terminate parental rights. At the termination hearing, the

mother showed signs that she was under the influence of methamphetamine.

Despite two requests, she did not provide a sample for drug testing.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2022). We may affirm if sufficient evidence

1The juvenile court also terminated the father’s parental rights, but he does not appeal. 3

supports termination on one of the grounds. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774

(Iowa 2012). The mother contests termination under section 232.116(1)(h) by

challenging the finding that the child could not be returned to her custody at the

time of the termination hearing without facing risk of harm sufficient for a CINA

adjudication. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4); In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707

(Iowa 2010).

Clear and convincing evidence shows the child could not be returned to the

mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. Although the mother

claims she has “shown significant progress and dedication to being sober and to

safely provide care for her child,” the record belies her claim. The mother failed to

address her substance abuse during the CINA proceedings and showed signs of

being under the influence of methamphetamine at the termination hearing.

Although the mother claims she separated from the father before the start of

termination hearing,2 the end of that relationship would not eliminate her need for

substance-abuse treatment. She has done “too little, too late.” In re C.B., 611

N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000) (“A parent cannot wait until the eve of termination,

after the statutory time periods for reunification have expired, to begin to express

an interest in parenting.”).

The mother also asks for more time under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b),

which allows the court to continue the child’s placement for six months if doing so

will eliminate the need for the child’s removal. Before granting such a request, the

2When asked if she intended to be in a relationship with the father again, the mother equivocated: “I don’t know. Could be. I don’t know. Maybe. Right now, I don’t know. I don’t have any idea.” 4

court must “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral

changes which comprise the basis for the determination that the need for removal

of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional

six-month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).

We decline the mother’s request for more time. The mother failed to

address the reasons that led to the CINA adjudication during those proceedings,

and nothing suggests she will do so now. Because the statutory period for

termination has passed, we view these proceedings with a sense of urgency. See

C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 494–95. It is not enough to hope that the mother is now

motivated to change. 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 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.” (citation omitted)).

Her lack of engagement during the CINA proceedings is more indicative of her

future performance than her claims at the termination hearing and on appeal. See

In re B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d 227, 233 (Iowa 2020) (noting a parent’s past performance

shows the quality of the future care that parent can provide).

Because termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best

interests, C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492, (stating that our primary interest in termination

proceedings is the best interests of the child), we decline the mother’s request for

more time and affirm the termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h).