In the Interest of M.N., Minor Child
This text of In the Interest of M.N., Minor Child (In the Interest of M.N., 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. 23-0250 Filed April 12, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF M.N., Minor Child,
L.N., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Linnea M.N. Nicol,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her now three-
year-old son. AFFIRMED.
Kristin R. Schiller Herman, Calmar, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Ed Bull, Assistant Attorney General, for
appellee State.
Sarah Dooley-Rothman of Rothman Law Office, Independence, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
A juvenile court terminated the legal relationship between M.N. and his
parents. Only the mother, Lindsay, appeals. She does not contest the State’s
proof of grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2022).
Instead, she argues termination of her parental rights was not in M.N.’s best
interests and, in fact, was harmful to him because of their close bond. See Iowa
Code § 232.116(2), (3)(c). She also asks for six more months to work toward
reunification. See id. § 232.104(2)(b).
After an independent assessment of the record, we find the best-interests
factors favor terminating Lindsay’s parental rights.1 We also find any harm that
M.N. would suffer from the termination does not outweigh Lindsay’s inability to
meet his needs because of her substance-abuse and mental-health challenges.
Finally, the record does not support delaying permanency. Thus, we affirm the
termination order.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
At his birth in February 2020, M.N. tested positive for methamphetamine,
amphetamines, and THC—an active ingredient in marijuana. Because of the
endangerment from these drugs, the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services offered the family voluntary services. But when Lindsay cut off
1 Our standard of review for termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). We give careful consideration to the juvenile court’s factual findings and in-person observations, but we are not bound by them. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021). Our top priority is the child’s best interests. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (identifying safety and the need for a permanent home as the “defining elements” in the best-interests determination). 3
communication with the case manager, the department implemented a safety plan.
From April 2021 until August 2021, M.N. and his two half-siblings lived with Lindsay
at their maternal grandmother’s house. But that safety plan ended when Lindsay
declined to participate in random drug testing and was inconsistent with other
services.
The State then sought to remove M.N. and the other two children from
Lindsay’s custody.2 But the court allowed M.N. to stay with Lindsay “if and when
she entered an in-patient substance abuse program” that permitted such a
placement. So Lindsay entered treatment that fall, joined by M.N. By November,
Lindsay was making positive strides. This progress prompted the court to consider
a trial in-home placement when she left the program. But her progress stalled in
December when she stopped participating in services. So the court approved
M.N.’s removal from parental custody in January 2022. The child has been with
the same foster family since then.
To enable M.N.’s safe return home, the court required Lindsay to obtain
another substance-abuse evaluation and follow through with the evaluator’s
recommendations for treatment and testing. The court also expected Lindsay to
seek mental-health counseling. But Lindsay fell short of the court’s expectations.
She continued to test positive for methamphetamine. Even during her testimony
at the termination hearing in October 2022, the court noticed that Lindsay
displayed “short, jerky movements” and “tics” consistent with methamphetamine
use. During that emotional testimony, Lindsay acknowledged being her “own worst
2 The half-siblings, J.N. and R.N., remained with their grandmother. They are not involved in this termination case. 4
enemy.”3 But she also testified that she “accomplished a lot of stuff in the last few
months” and asked the juvenile court to delay permanency for six months.
The court terminated Lindsay’s parental rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(1), paragraphs (h) and (l). The court also found termination was in M.N.’s
best interests and no permissive exceptions applied. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2),
(3). Lindsay now appeals that order.
II. Legal Analysis
Best Interests. Because Lindsay does not challenge the grounds for
termination, we start with the best-interests determination. Lindsay contends that
because she and M.N. share a strong bond, termination would not serve his
emotional needs.
In deciding whether termination is in M.N.’s best interests, we give primary
consideration to his safety; to the placement that would best further his long-term
nurturing and growth; and to his physical, mental, and emotional condition and
needs. See id. § 232.116(2). We also consider whether he is integrated into a
family foster home, how long he has been in that placement, and the desirability
of maintaining that environment. Id. § 232.116(2)(b)(1).
The juvenile court recognized that M.N. has a “meaningful” bond with his
mother. He enjoys visits with her. But even Lindsay acknowledged that time out
3 Lindsay also testified that she stopped having contact with her boyfriend Chad, whom the juvenile court characterized as “a known drug user.” The court found earlier that Lindsay had not been honest about discontinuing that relationship. The court directed that if Lindsay continued their relationship, Chad would have to participate in drug testing and family centered services. The guardian ad litem believed that the “volatile relationship” between Chad and Lindsay negatively impacted the child. 5
of her care has diminished their connection: “I don’t have enough time ever to have
a bond back like we had because I get two hours a week.” The court also noted
that M.N. was integrated into his foster family and looked to them to fulfill his
physical and emotional needs. Considering Lindsay’s struggle for stability, the
court decided termination was in M.N.’s best interests.
We reach the same conclusion. As the guardian ad litem described,
Lindsay has “a serious substance abuse issue” that she has been unable to
address. “[M.N.], if he were to be returned to her care does face harm.” Because
he was “thriving” with the foster parents and they were ready to adopt, she
recommended termination of parental rights. We agree it is not in M.N.’s best
interests to postpone permanency in the hope that Lindsay will someday be able
to provide a stable home for him. See P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41.
Permissive Exception. Lindsay next invokes Iowa Code
section 232.116(3)(c), contending termination would harm M.N.
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 M.N., Minor Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-mn-minor-child-iowactapp-2023.