In the Interest of S.N., Minor Child, A.N., Mother
This text of In the Interest of S.N., Minor Child, A.N., Mother (In the Interest of S.N., Minor Child, A.N., Mother) 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. 16-0244 Filed April 6, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF S.N., Minor child,
A.N., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Annette L.
Boehlje, District Associate Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, S.N.
AFFIRMED.
Crystal L. Ely of the North Iowa Youth Law Center, Mason City, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
David A. Grooters of Pappajohn, Shriver, Eide & Nielsen, P.C., Mason
City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ. 2
VOGEL, Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, S.N.
She asserts (1) the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to make
reasonable efforts to reunite her with S.N. given she was denied visitation for one
month, and (2) that one factor set forth in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2015)
should preclude termination. We conclude DHS offered reasonable services to
the mother and no considerations counsel against termination; consequently, we
affirm the order of the district court.
S.N., born September 2007, came to the attention of DHS in June 2013
due to the mother’s use of methamphetamine while caring for him.1 After DHS
provided multiple services, he was removed from the mother’s care on October
2, 2014, because of the mother’s instability, mental and substance abuse issues,
as well as her inability to control S.N.’s aggressive behaviors. S.N. was placed
with his maternal grandmother, though at the time of the termination hearing S.N.
resided in the Psychiatric Medical Institution for Children (PMIC) facility.
The mother continued to use methamphetamine through the majority of
these proceedings, only sporadically attending substance abuse treatment. The
DHS report dated November 23, 2015, noted the mother had a positive drug test
in the past thirty days and she had missed a drug test scheduled for November 9,
2015. She also refused a drug test in December. In addition, the mother suffers
from mental health issues, though she does not consistently attend treatment.
1 The DHS report to the court dated January 5, 2016, notes, “[s]ervices have been involved with S.N. since he was approximately 2 years old.” The mother has been receiving services, such as mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment, since 2011. 3
The district court noted, “She is a conspiracy theorist and rarely trusts anyone.
She has active paranoia and has at times during this case audio or video taped
providers to ‘prove’ they were out to get her.”
The State petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights, 2 and a
hearing was held that the mother did not attend.3 On January 22, 2016, the
district court filed an order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(a),4 (e), and (f), finding that it was in S.N.’s best interests to
do so and that no permissive factor weighed against termination. The mother
appeals.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63,
64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The grounds for termination must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. Id. Our primary concern is the child’s best interests.
Id. The court must also consider the permissive factors contained in Iowa Code
section 232.116(3), which state:
The court need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child if the court finds any of the following: a. A relative has legal custody of the child. b. The child is over ten years of age and objects to the termination. c. There is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship. d. It is necessary to place the child in a hospital, facility, or institution for care and treatment and the continuation of the parent- child relationship is not preventing a permanent family placement for the child. 2 It also petitioned for the father’s rights to be terminated, which the district court granted; however, the father does not appeal. 3 She informed her attorney she had to wait for a moving van and requested a continuance, which was denied. In its order the district court found “this was another attempt to delay the proceedings by the mother.” 4 We note the record does not show the mother consented to termination of her parental rights; however, she does not contest this ground on appeal. 4
e. The absence of a parent is due to the parent’s admission or commitment to any institution, hospital, or health facility or due to active service in the state or federal armed forces.
Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a)–(e).
The mother does not contest grounds for termination pursuant to
subsection (1). Thus, we affirm the court’s termination of her parental rights
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(a), (e), and (f).5 The mother’s
complaints on appeal are that DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite
her with S.N., and a consideration found in subsection (3)—that S.N. is placed in
the PMIC facility—should preclude termination.
With regard to her reasonable-efforts claim, after her visits with S.N. were
suspended, the mother sought visitation in an October 20, 2015 request for
additional services. However, on the recommendation of S.N.’s therapist,
visitation was not resumed because S.N. was exhibiting negative behaviors
following the visits. The district court noted in the October 29, 2015 permanency
order:
[The] concern is that [the mother] encourages S.N. to be defiant with authority and to act paranoid by constantly questioning authority (and tape-recording all interactions). It is important to note that other professionals, including those at Cherokee and non- professionals, such as the caretakers of S.N. believe [the mother’s] visitation causes problems with S.N.’s behavior and defiance.
Moreover, although the mother has been receiving services since 2011, she has
yet to resolve any of her substance abuse or mental health issues. Given these
circumstances and the negative impact the mother was having on S.N. during
visitation, we conclude the reasonable-efforts requirement was met.
5 Because the mother does not contest the grounds for termination, we do not review the merits of the applicability of these paragraphs as found by the district court. 5
Additionally, the record establishes it is in S.N.’s best interests to
terminate the mother’s parental rights, and no considerations found in subsection
(3) preclude termination. As the district court noted:
[The mother] believe[s] that [S.N.’s] problems are a result of the IDHS intervention in the case. [She will not admit] that [her] own mental health issues, substance abuse issues . . . and questioning of authority has any impact upon [S.N.]. Despite nearly two years of services, little progress has been made, and the therapists believe [the mother’s] contact with [S.N.] actually prevents him from being able to move on from the paranoid thinking and acts of defiance.
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 S.N., Minor Child, A.N., Mother, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-sn-minor-child-an-mother-iowactapp-2016.