In the Interest of R.W., L.W., A.W. and K.W., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: May 24, 2023
• Docket: 23-0209
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0209 Filed May 24, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF R.W., L.W., A.W. and K.W., Minor Children,

K.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P.

Strausser, District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four children.

AFFIRMED.

Esther J. Dean, Muscatine, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Patricia A. Rolfstad, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four children, born

in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018. She contends the State failed to prove the grounds

for termination cited by the district court and she should have been afforded

additional time to reunify with the children.

We may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to support any of

the grounds cited by the district court. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa

2017). We elect to focus on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2022). The

provisions apply to children of different ages, but both require proof the children

cannot be returned to parental custody.

The department of health and human services intervened in October 2019

after the mother was observed to be “under the influence of methamphetamine as

evidenced by her” dilated pupils, agitation, and slurred speech. The mother was

parenting her four children at the time. The department sought to have the children

immediately removed from parental custody. The district court granted the

request. The children were later adjudicated in need of assistance.

The following summer, the mother entered a substance-abuse treatment

facility. The children were returned to her care at the facility. They were again

removed after several months when it was discovered that the mother used

methamphetamine. By this time, more than a year had elapsed since the first

removal.

Following the second removal, the mother “miss[ed] multiple drug tests,”

failed to schedule a psychological exam, and “struggle[ed] to supervise the 3

children during visitation.” Nonetheless, the district court gave her the benefit of

the doubt and afforded her an additional six months to work toward reunification.

Three months before the termination hearing, the mother reinitiated drug

tests. She “provided 4 clean patches and a clean hair stat test” but missed two

tests. She also began attending therapy appointments and enrolled in a Safe Care

program, attending five out of twelve sessions. She worked at a fast-food

restaurant, “maintained housing,” and “paid off her traffic fines and some of her

criminal fines.” She visited her children “on a consistent basis” and did “a good job

of acknowledging special events like birthdays and holidays.”

That said, the children remained out of the mother’s care for approximately

seventeen months following the second removal and a total of twenty-one of the

twenty-six months preceding the termination hearing. The department employee

in charge of the case testified, “There is history [of methamphetamine use] all the

way back to 2012 and [it] shows that she does not maintain sobriety for any real

length of time.” The employee added, “There are more parts than just being sober.

If we are looking at everything, she has not done everything that she has been

asked to do.” A service provider echoed this sentiment. She testified the mother

“failed to internalize that in parenting, a lot of times you have to put your children’s

needs ahead of your own personal needs.”

Although the mother believed she could safely parent the children at the

time of the termination hearing, the record establishes otherwise. On our de novo

review, we are persuaded the children could not be returned to her custody.

We turn to the mother’s request for six additional months to achieve

reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). As noted, the district court granted 4

her one six-month extension. The mother failed to make sufficient progress during

that period. The district court summed up her efforts as follows:

In the last six months the mother has sporadically drug tested. She has completed less than half the Safe Care sessions. She has not attended mental health therapy. The one therapy session that the mother attended, the provider picked up the phone and made the phone call to schedule the appointment for the mother. The mother missed the psychological evaluation for the third time within the last six months.

Given the mother’s lack of significant progress within the first extension period, the

district court appropriately denied her request for another six-month extension.

We affirm the order terminating the mother’s parental rights to the four