In the Interest of M.M.-P., K.M.-P., and K.M.-P., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: October 16, 2024
• Docket: 24-1279
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1279 Filed October 16, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.-P., K.M.-P., and K.M.-P., Minor Children,

K.P.-M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Barbara E. Maness, Davenport, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ. 2

SANDY, Judge.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to M.M.-P., born

in July 2015, K.M.-P., born in November 2016, and K.M.-P., born in February 2018,

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024). The mother appeals, arguing

the juvenile court erred in ruling that (1) there was clear and convincing evidence

that the mother’s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to

section 232.116(1)(f); and (2) there was clear and convincing evidence that

termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children

pursuant to section 232.116(2). Following our de novo review of the record, we

affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) became

involved in this case in April 2022, when the mother failed to pick up the two

youngest children from daycare. The oldest was normally dropped off at the

daycare after school but did not show. The mother could not be contacted.

The daycare contacted the mother’s roommate, Rusty, who she met while

living at a homeless shelter. He was unsure of the mother’s whereabouts. Rusty

had recently arranged for the oldest child to be brought to the school and taken to

the daycare, but he claimed his truck had been borrowed by a different man who

Rusty had arranged to pick up the oldest child. Rusty claimed he later found the

oldest child with that man at a hotel room. Another unidentified man appeared at

the daycare to pick up the other two children and threatened to blow up the daycare

when the daycare workers refused to hand the children over to him. The HHS 3

worker reported that the mother was seemingly unconcerned with the situation that

occurred.

A child-in-need of assistance petition was filed for each child on May 3,

2022. A removal order was filed on May 6, 2022, after a hearing, and the children

remained placed together in family foster care. The adjudicatory order found that

each child was a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code

section 232.96A(3)(b) in regard to the mother. The children remained in foster

care.

At the disposition in September 2022, the State, mother, and guardian ad

litem (GAL) agreed the children should remain adjudicated, and agreed as to

placement. A permanency hearing was held in May 2023 in which the State

requested that the court grant a six-month extension for reunification. The mother

and GAL agreed, although the GAL expressed skepticism, and the additional six-

month extension was granted. At the time of the permanency hearing, the mother

was homeless and was to book a hotel before any visit with the children. As of the

date of the termination, none of the overnight stays have actually taken place—

even after the mother moved into an apartment.

The mother has taken part in ordered psychological evaluations, which have

resulted in diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder,

and generalized anxiety disorder. The doctor recommended intensive outpatient

psychological treatment, psychotropic medication, and that she only work part-time

so that she may focus on her psychological treatment. 4

Another permanency hearing was held in November 2023. HHS argued the

children should remain in foster placement and that the permanency goal should

be changed to termination of parental rights and adoption.

By this time, the mother had moved to a temporary assisted housing

apartment. HHS reported she was still struggling with her mental health issues

and that she was struggling socially and with depression, and in interacting and

functioning with others. An HHS worker stated she has “a difficult time handling

herself and the kids” and is “not able to meet their needs and her own needs at the

same time.” While the mother was receiving some psychological treatment, her

attendance had been inconsistent and her provider had considered dropping her.

She spends a lot of time sleeping, including through visits during the day. She has

missed visits at both her and her parents’ homes and has missed phone and video

calls.

There was a planned visit to a pumpkin patch that fell through when the

mother was told it would be inappropriate to bring a new boyfriend with her. On a

semi-supervised visit at the library, the mother left without informing the HHS

worker where she and the children had gone. The HHS worker could not reach

the mother on her phone to find out where she had gone. This scenario occurred

at a visit to the park as well. That HHS worker stated that the mother has never

answered her door for a visit. The HHS worker could only reach her via cell phone

calls. The visits have since changed from semi-supervised to fully supervised.

This worker did not believe that the mother is prepared to take on the challenge of

raising the children. 5

The second day of the permanency hearing was held in December 2023,

and the mother failed to appear due to transportation issues. The hearing

proceeded without her upon the court’s denial of her motion to continue. She

appeared later during the hearing via Zoom. Another HHS worker testified that the

mother had exercised all of her visits that month but that transportation is still an

issue. She also struggles with handling the children for long periods of time. The

third day of the permanency hearing took place in January 2024.

The mother’s new apartment is large enough for children and she receives

rent assistance, but the HHS worker stated it smells like marijuana. The mother

works at a tire store and is dating her boss. The boss has been at the mother’s

residence unannounced on days scheduled for visits. His presence caused the

HHS worker’s supervisor to instruct the worker not to enter the home. This leads

the worker to believe the mother is not addressing her issues with entering healthy

relationships. In its termination order, the juvenile court noted the “docket contains

an Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Investigation Summary

from October 2021.” That report revealed that two of the children had once been

left at home from daycare with a person who was a sex offender and that the

mother knew his criminal status.

The mother also keeps a list of “safe friends able to help the girls.” This

document lists individuals of unknown backgrounds, such as an individual simply

referred to as “Shoe.” The HHS worker stated that the mother’s vetting system for

these individuals is to check the sex offender registry. The mother indicates that

all the individuals are at least acquaintances, but that “Shoe” should be removed. 6

The children have “severe” dental needs and the mother has not addressed

those needs. When asked why she has not arranged for a dentist, she blamed

insurance issues but conceded that she had found a dentist who accepts their

insurance. She admitted that she has not yet set up appointments with that dentist

and that she cannot say what has prevented her from doing so.

The July 2024 HHS case report states that “[t]he children appeared to be

happy and healthy while in the placement home as well as appeared to have a

strong bond with the placement since they were around the family before moving

to the home. The foster parents already have their school and mental health

services set up once school starts.” The foster parents are now completing an

adoption home study and the children have expressed a desire to stay with their

foster parents. The children all express missing their mother but have conveyed

a desire to stay with the foster parents.

The termination petition was filed in March 2024, and the hearing took place

June 12-13, 2024. The mother was serving a sixty-day sentence in jail at the time

of the hearing. The juvenile court entered its order terminating the mother’s

parental rights on July 26, 2024. She now appeals.

II. Standard of Review

We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re M.W., 876

N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). That means “we review the facts as well as the law

and adjudicate rights anew.” In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992) (citation

omitted). In doing so, we give weight to the fact findings of the juvenile court,

especially when considering credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them.

See In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“Where there is 7

conflicting evidence on some issues, we give consideration to the juvenile court on

issues of credibility.”).

III. Discussion

We generally employ a three-step analysis to review a termination of

parental rights, asking whether (1) a statutory ground for termination is satisfied,

(2) the child’s best interests are served by termination, and (3) a permissive

exception applies and should be exercised to preclude termination. See In re L.B.,

970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022).

A. Statutory Ground for Termination

The statutory grounds for termination under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f) are satisfied when all the following have occurred:

(1) The child is four years of age or older. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102.

The mother does not dispute that the State proved the first three elements under

paragraph (1)(f) but argues there was not clear and convincing evidence that, at

the time of the termination hearing, the children could not be returned to her

custody.

“A child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parent . . . if by

doing so the child would be exposed to any harm amounting to a new child in need

of assistance adjudication or without remaining a child in need of assistance.” In 8

re S.C., No.15-0262, 2015 WL 2089743, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 6, 2015) (citing

In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 277 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995)). A parent’s incarceration

at the time of the termination hearing is grounds for finding that the child cannot be

returned to that parent’s custody—even if the parent is to soon be released from

incarceration. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 317 (Iowa 2021).

At the time of the termination hearing, the mother was serving a sixty-day

sentence for contempt of court in the Linn County jail. Her release was scheduled

for almost a month after the hearing. As a result, it was impossible to return the

children to her custody at the time of the hearing. Returning the children to her at

that time would have exposed them to the possibility of another child in need of

assistance adjudication.

And the other arguments the mother makes are not compelling. She

emphasizes that her lack of driver’s license should not be held against her. But

the district court referenced her lack of license in reference to her poor money

management habits. Despite having the money to pay to reinstate her license,

she spent that money on new tires for her vehicle—a vehicle she is not currently

licensed to operate. And she has not made significant progress on paying the

fines for reacquiring her license—she claims to have paid roughly $100 of the

$1000 in fines. While she is not required to hold a driver’s license, she consistently

has issues arranging transportation for important events. She failed to show up to

the second day of the permanency review hearing, and her other transportation

arrangements often fall through. She agreed that a bus would be an option for

transporting the children but admitted she has not taken steps to acquiring bus

passes. 9

She also asserts that the allegations of exposing the children to strange

men is “overblown.” This argument demonstrates the mindset the juvenile court

observed in its order:

[The mother] still struggles to take responsibility for the removal. She testified that “Rusty was supposed to be responsible for picking up and dropping off.” She stated that Rusty “failed to pick up the girls” and that is why the girls were “dispersed.” Well, in April 2022 [the mother] had three girls aged 6, 5, and 4. Rusty was an adult male they had just recently met while Rusty was living in a homeless shelter. The girls never should have been around Rusty and Rusty never should have been in charge of anything with respect to the girls. . . . [The mother] still does not understand. [The mother] appears to think that the problem was that Rusty did not show up, rather than the fact that Rusty should not have been involved in any capacity at all. (cleaned up).

The mother chooses to argue that she did nothing wrong rather than argue the

evidence shows that she has taken steps to ensure there are more responsible

childcare arrangements in the future. We see this as an admission that these types

of careless, ad hoc childcare arrangements will continue. Thus, we agree the

statutory grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) are

satisfied.

B. Best Interests of the Children

“Even after we have determined that statutory grounds for termination exist,

we must still determine whether termination is in the children's best interests.” In

re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted). In considering the

best interests of the child, we are to give “primary consideration to the child’s

safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of

the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the

child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). 10

And we have stated, “the child’s safety and the need for permanent home”

are the quintessential elements of a best-interest analysis. In re A.M.,

No. 20-0480, 2020 WL 4814170, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2020). A parent’s

past performance “may be indicative of the quality of the future care that parent is

capable of providing.” See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012) (citation

omitted). Thus, “[r]ather than speculate about what the future holds for” a parent,

“it is more accurate to look in the rear-view mirror and make a decision for [the

child] based on what has already happened.” In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171

(Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). “In determining [a child’s] best interests, ‘we look

to [the parent’s] past performance because it may indicate the quality of care [she]

is capable of providing in the future.’” Id. (citation omitted).

And as outlined above, there have been many times when the children’s

safety has been a concern. They have been left in the care of unknown men and

not been picked up from daycare, including an instance in which the man

attempting to pick them up from daycare threatened to blow up the daycare. The

mother has missed visits with the girls due to her sleeping habits. She has had to

reschedule important visits the children were looking forward to (i.e. pumpkin

patch) because of the priority she placed on other men. The HHS worker testified

that at the removal hearing the mother suggested the children be placed with an

unknown man from South Carolina. We believe the mother’s past behavior is

strongly predictive of her future behavior due to her failure to admit her past actions

put the children in potential danger. 11

Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s

parental rights.

AFFIRMED.