In the Interest of N.K., Minor Child
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0330
Filed May 26, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF N.K., Minor Child,
A.S.F., Mother, Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, James B. Malloy, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Ashley M. Sparks of Neighborhood Law Group of Iowa, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Emily DeRonde of DeRonde Law Firm, PLLC, Johnston, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, N.K., born in September 2019.1 Because grounds for termination exist under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020),2 termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests, and no permissive exception weighs against termination, we affirm.
We review termination of parental rights proceedings de novo. A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 773. We give weight to the findings of the court but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(4)(g).
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)
provides that termination may be ordered when there is clear and convincing evidence that a child under the age of three who has been adjudicated a [child in need of assistance (CINA)] and removed from the parent[’s] care for at least the last six consecutive months cannot be returned to the parent[’s] custody at the time of the termination hearing.
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010).
The mother first asserts the termination petition should have been dismissed for “lack of notice.” This contention is based upon the omission of the subsection numeral (1) after the code section in the petition. We are not persuaded the omission requires dismissal.
“Notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard appropriate to the nature of the case is the most rudimentary demand of due process of law in
1 The father’s rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 2 The juvenile court also found termination was appropriate under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e). Because we find termination was proper under paragraph (h), we need not address the alternative ground. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012) (“When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find supported by the record.”).
proceedings affecting parental rights to children.” In re S.P., 672 N.W.2d 842, 845 (Iowa 2003) (citation omitted).
To allow the parent to prepare for the hearing and defend against the allegations, due process requires the child and his parents or guardian be notified, in writing, of the specific charge or factual allegations to be considered at the hearing, and that such written notice be given at the earliest practicable time, and in any event sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation.
In re B.E., 875 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, the termination petition states:
The parent-child relationship now existing between the child and the parents should be terminated because of the grounds specified in § 232.116 Iowa Code as follows:
(e) (1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.
(h) (1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(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 six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
(4) There 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.
The petition thus quotes the paragraphs (e) and (h) of subsection (1) in their entirety. We are convinced the mother had notice of the specific factual allegation
to be considered at the hearing. The juvenile court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss.
Turning to the mother’s substantive claims, she asserts there is not clear and convincing evidence to establish the grounds to terminate her parental rights, termination of her parental rights is not in the child’s best interests, and the strong bond between her and the child should preclude termination.
Grounds exist. The mother concedes the child is under three years of age, was adjudicated a CINA on November 4, 2019, and has been out of her custody for more than a year—which is twice the statutory period. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(1)–(3). She argues, though, the State has failed to prove the child cannot be returned to her at the present time. Section 232.116(1)(h)(4)’s reference to “the present time” means at the time of termination hearing. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014); D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.
The mother has a long-standing substance-abuse addiction. See A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 776 (“We have long recognized that an unresolved, severe, and chronic drug addiction can render a parent unfit to raise children.”). The mother had a child prior to N.K., who also was removed from the mother’s care after testing positive for methamphetamine. N.K.’s umbilical cord tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana at birth. The mother finally entered an inpatient-treatment program on September 21, 2020—about a year after N.K.’s removal and after the termination-of-parental-rights petition was filed. The mother admitted she continued to use methamphetamine throughout the juvenile court proceedings and she tested positive for methamphetamine at the time she entered treatment. She was about six months pregnant at admission. At the time of the December 2020
termination hearing, the mother was soon to give birth to a child and had been substance free for about eighty days. It is clear the mother’s substance-abuse issues are far from resolved.
She argues N.K. could be returned to her custody in the treatment facility because there was a support system there for herself and the child. However, the facility programmers did not recommend N.K. be returned to the mother yet because she was at the beginning phases of treatment and had just started to engage in programming. We agree with the juvenile court’s findings:
[The mother] has made attempts, but has reverted to old behaviors [and] continued to use methamphetamine for the last year while the CINA case was pending. At the time of the termination hearing, she was in the House of Mercy program, but tested positive for methamphetamine use on the day she was admitted and is pregnant with another child and continuing to use methamphetamine with a knowledge of the dangers that she is exposing her unborn child to.
As a result of the parents’ choices, [N.K.] cannot return to either parent at this time. Despite the services provided, the parents have not been able to make the changes needed to effectively parent their child. They are not able to meet their own physical, mental, and emotional needs, much less that of their child. Termination of their parental rights and adoption will allow for [N.K.] to continue to experience a safe and stable home.
Termination is in the child’s best interests.3 We encourage the mother to remain in treatment. Yet, N.K. has waited more than a year for her mother to learn
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the Interest of N.K., Minor Child (In the Interest of N.K., Minor Child) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.