IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1609 Filed March 17, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF T.T. and A.B., Minor Children,
S.A., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Judith Jennings Hoover, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for
minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. 2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to T.T., born in 2010,
and A.B., born in 2011, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020).1 She
contends grounds for termination were not proved, termination of her parental
rights is not in the children’s best interests, and permissive factors allow the court
to avoid termination of her parental rights. Because the mother’s substance-abuse
and mental-health concerns have not been adequately addressed and interfere
with her ability to provide consistent and stable parenting, we affirm the termination
of the mother’s parental rights.
T.T. and A.B. are two of the mother’s seven children, none of whom are in
the mother’s custody.2 T.T.’s and A.B.’s fathers’ parental rights were also
terminated, and neither father appeals. The children were removed from their
mother’s custody on June 4, 2019, due to the mother’s aggressive and erratic
behavior and suspected methamphetamine use. T.T. and A.B. have been placed
with their three younger siblings in the care of their stepfather since the children
were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) in June 2019. The mother
1 Section 232.116(1)(f) allows the court to terminate parental rights if all of the following are proved: (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. 2 From 2008 to 2011 the family was involved with juvenile court proceedings due
to the parents’ methamphetamine use and domestic violence. 3
was ordered to participate in random drug testing, obtain a substance-abuse and
a psychiatric/psychological evaluation, and follow any treatment
recommendations. The stepfather obtained an order restraining the mother from
coming on the property or removing the children.
The family was offered services by the department of human services
(DHS). The mother’s visits remained fully supervised. The mother refused to
submit to drug testing, claiming she did not trust the system.
The mother was arrested on December 3 and charged with possession of
a controlled substance, methamphetamine.
The mother obtained a psychological evaluation on March 12, 2020. The
evaluator’s report indicated the mother was twenty minutes late. The evaluator
observed the mother’s “[t]hought process was tangential and difficult to follow at
times.” The mother stated she started using methamphetamine when she was
nineteen years old and her last use was “this morning.” The mother reported that
methamphetamine “helps her [posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)] episodes.”3
The evaluator summarized her findings:
Given that [the mother] admitted to using meth on the day of testing, scores on the tests cannot be trusted. She over-reported on most instruments, which may mean she has significant genuine psychological distress, but which may also mean the assessments are not fully accurate. Diagnoses are made based on history and self-report.
Diagnoses were PTSD; stimulant use disorder, amphetamine-type substance,
moderate; generalized anxiety disorder; and major depressive disorder, recurrent
3The mother reported having PTSD “episodes” that include physical symptoms and impaired mental functioning. 4
episode, moderate. The evaluator recommended intensive substance-abuse
treatment; abstaining from using methamphetamine and other drugs; and
establishing and maintaining stable housing, consistent income, and supportive
and healthy relationships. Also recommended was continuing individual
counseling for PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
The mother later told her DHS case manager she had not used
methamphetamine the morning of her mental-health evaluation; rather, she was
“testing” the evaluator and felt that her report of using methamphetamine should
have led to calling off the evaluation.
As of May 2020, the case manager summarized the lack of progress in the
juvenile proceedings. It was noted the mother had told family support providers
that she used methamphetamine. The case manager also noted the mother “tends
to focus on what has gone wrong in this case and wanting to fix those perceived
wrongs” rather than “focus[] on what she needs to do in order to get the children
back.” The case manager wrote that after recently understanding “drug testing is
going to be a huge factor in being able to move forward with her case,” the mother
agreed to get a test, but then missed the first call to be tested. The case manager
also wrote: “[The mother] is her own worst enemy in getting the children returned
to her.” The report indicated the mother was living with T.T.’s father, who also was
not participating in court-ordered drug testing.
At the May 27 permanency hearing, the mother stated she had obtained a
substance-abuse evaluation and that no treatment was recommended, but no
documentation of the evaluation was provided to DHS. There was evidence the
mother violated the restraining order between her and the stepfather by constantly 5
driving by his home and contacting his coworker to speak negatively of him. The
court changed the goal in T.T.’s case to termination of parental rights and adoption.
However, the goal with respect to A.B. remained reunification with the mother.
On June 8, the mother provided a sample for urinalysis (UA) and had a drug
patch placed. The UA was negative for all substances. The patch was positive
for methamphetamine.
On July 16, a petition to terminate the mother’s rights to T.T. and A.B. was
filed.
The case manager’s October 28 report to the court states the mother “has
admitted to a relapse during this reporting time and has also admitted to
struggling.” The mother had not provided any further drug testing through DHS
and was not engaged in any mental-health treatment. She summarized:
During this reporting period, [the mother] has continued to refuse to do drug testing through DHS. She has admitted to having a relapse a couple months ago and has recently admitted to struggling with her substance abuse issues. . . . The children have been out of home for over a year and are in need of having permanency in their lives. They need to know where they are going to be long term and not have their lives disrupted any more than it has been.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1609 Filed March 17, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF T.T. and A.B., Minor Children,
S.A., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Judith Jennings Hoover, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for
minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. 2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to T.T., born in 2010,
and A.B., born in 2011, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020).1 She
contends grounds for termination were not proved, termination of her parental
rights is not in the children’s best interests, and permissive factors allow the court
to avoid termination of her parental rights. Because the mother’s substance-abuse
and mental-health concerns have not been adequately addressed and interfere
with her ability to provide consistent and stable parenting, we affirm the termination
of the mother’s parental rights.
T.T. and A.B. are two of the mother’s seven children, none of whom are in
the mother’s custody.2 T.T.’s and A.B.’s fathers’ parental rights were also
terminated, and neither father appeals. The children were removed from their
mother’s custody on June 4, 2019, due to the mother’s aggressive and erratic
behavior and suspected methamphetamine use. T.T. and A.B. have been placed
with their three younger siblings in the care of their stepfather since the children
were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) in June 2019. The mother
1 Section 232.116(1)(f) allows the court to terminate parental rights if all of the following are proved: (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. 2 From 2008 to 2011 the family was involved with juvenile court proceedings due
to the parents’ methamphetamine use and domestic violence. 3
was ordered to participate in random drug testing, obtain a substance-abuse and
a psychiatric/psychological evaluation, and follow any treatment
recommendations. The stepfather obtained an order restraining the mother from
coming on the property or removing the children.
The family was offered services by the department of human services
(DHS). The mother’s visits remained fully supervised. The mother refused to
submit to drug testing, claiming she did not trust the system.
The mother was arrested on December 3 and charged with possession of
a controlled substance, methamphetamine.
The mother obtained a psychological evaluation on March 12, 2020. The
evaluator’s report indicated the mother was twenty minutes late. The evaluator
observed the mother’s “[t]hought process was tangential and difficult to follow at
times.” The mother stated she started using methamphetamine when she was
nineteen years old and her last use was “this morning.” The mother reported that
methamphetamine “helps her [posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)] episodes.”3
The evaluator summarized her findings:
Given that [the mother] admitted to using meth on the day of testing, scores on the tests cannot be trusted. She over-reported on most instruments, which may mean she has significant genuine psychological distress, but which may also mean the assessments are not fully accurate. Diagnoses are made based on history and self-report.
Diagnoses were PTSD; stimulant use disorder, amphetamine-type substance,
moderate; generalized anxiety disorder; and major depressive disorder, recurrent
3The mother reported having PTSD “episodes” that include physical symptoms and impaired mental functioning. 4
episode, moderate. The evaluator recommended intensive substance-abuse
treatment; abstaining from using methamphetamine and other drugs; and
establishing and maintaining stable housing, consistent income, and supportive
and healthy relationships. Also recommended was continuing individual
counseling for PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
The mother later told her DHS case manager she had not used
methamphetamine the morning of her mental-health evaluation; rather, she was
“testing” the evaluator and felt that her report of using methamphetamine should
have led to calling off the evaluation.
As of May 2020, the case manager summarized the lack of progress in the
juvenile proceedings. It was noted the mother had told family support providers
that she used methamphetamine. The case manager also noted the mother “tends
to focus on what has gone wrong in this case and wanting to fix those perceived
wrongs” rather than “focus[] on what she needs to do in order to get the children
back.” The case manager wrote that after recently understanding “drug testing is
going to be a huge factor in being able to move forward with her case,” the mother
agreed to get a test, but then missed the first call to be tested. The case manager
also wrote: “[The mother] is her own worst enemy in getting the children returned
to her.” The report indicated the mother was living with T.T.’s father, who also was
not participating in court-ordered drug testing.
At the May 27 permanency hearing, the mother stated she had obtained a
substance-abuse evaluation and that no treatment was recommended, but no
documentation of the evaluation was provided to DHS. There was evidence the
mother violated the restraining order between her and the stepfather by constantly 5
driving by his home and contacting his coworker to speak negatively of him. The
court changed the goal in T.T.’s case to termination of parental rights and adoption.
However, the goal with respect to A.B. remained reunification with the mother.
On June 8, the mother provided a sample for urinalysis (UA) and had a drug
patch placed. The UA was negative for all substances. The patch was positive
for methamphetamine.
On July 16, a petition to terminate the mother’s rights to T.T. and A.B. was
filed.
The case manager’s October 28 report to the court states the mother “has
admitted to a relapse during this reporting time and has also admitted to
struggling.” The mother had not provided any further drug testing through DHS
and was not engaged in any mental-health treatment. She summarized:
During this reporting period, [the mother] has continued to refuse to do drug testing through DHS. She has admitted to having a relapse a couple months ago and has recently admitted to struggling with her substance abuse issues. . . . The children have been out of home for over a year and are in need of having permanency in their lives. They need to know where they are going to be long term and not have their lives disrupted any more than it has been.
A termination-of-parental-rights hearing was held on November 2. The
mother testified she was self-employed, attending online schooling, and planning
to develop a drug rehab facility using equine therapy. She stated she also was
involved in helping others locate family members subjected to human trafficking,
which required she engage with “certain circles” hanging around with “what society
calls junkies or meth heads or drug dealers.” She called this work “my addiction.”
With regard to her own substance-abuse issues, the mother testified she had been
a recovering addict for six years and acknowledged use of methamphetamine in 6
November 2018 and October 2019. She denied any more recent use, contending
the positive sweat patch was the result of someone intentionally switching her vape
pen for one containing methamphetamine.
Service providers testified to concerns regarding drug usage by the mother
prior to her visits. The family safety specialist (FSS), who had been involved in the
supervised visits throughout the life of the case, testified the mother often used her
visits to vent about issues and discuss her work with human trafficking victims
rather than focusing on the children. The FSS expressed concern about the
mother’s passion being directed at a “new path every couple visits” rather than on
the children and their need for stability. She testified it is obvious the mother loves
her children and they love her but the children were more bonded to their siblings
and T.T. and A.B. were bonded with their stepfather, who they call “dad.”
The case manager testified the stepfather had become a licensed foster
care provider and was willing to adopt T.T. and A.B. and facilitate visits with their
older siblings. She testified the children needed stability. The children’s guardian
ad litem joined in recommending terminating the mother’s parental rights.
On November 23, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights,
concluding there was clear and convincing evidence the children could not be
returned to the mother’s custody “now, or in the reasonably near future.” The court
found T.T. and A.B. were fully integrated into the home with their stepfather and
siblings and wished to remain there with their siblings.
The mother appeals. She concedes the children are both older than four
years of age, have been adjudicated CINA, and have been removed from her
custody for more than the last twelve consecutive months. See Iowa Code 7
§ 232.116(f)(1)–(3). She asserts, however, the children could be returned to her
at the present time and, thus, grounds for termination do not exist. See id.
§ 232.116(f)(4). We cannot agree.
On our de novo review, see In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014),
there is clear and convincing evidence the children cannot be returned to the
mother’s custody at present without the risk of adjudicatory harm. The concerns
that were present in June 2019 remain concerns at the time of the termination
hearing. The mother has consistently refused drug testing and denies the need
for substance-abuse treatment, she has reported relapses over the course of the
proceedings, while denying those same relapses later. She has been unable or
unwilling to honestly assess her substance abuse. She lives with T.T.’s father,
who also has failed to address his own substance-abuse issues. The mother
testified her last mental-health treatment was in March 2020. The mother has yet
to adequately recognize the affects her substance abuse and mental health have
on 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.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 776 (Iowa 2012). Giving primary consideration to the
children’s safety, the best placement for furthering their long-term nurturing and
growth, and to their physical, mental and emotional needs as required by section
232.116(2), we conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the
children’s best interest. The mother has been unwilling or unable to address her
substance-abuse and mental-health issues. She has chosen her other passions
over her children. And as the juvenile court observed, she “needs mental health 8
therapy that she is not engaging in at the current time.” The children need
permanency and stability now. T.T. and A.B. have been in a safe and stable home
with their stepfather and siblings. They are fully integrated into that family. See
id. at 778 (“It is simply not in the best interests of children to continue to keep them
in temporary foster homes while the natural parents get their lives together.”
(citation omitted)).
Iowa Code section 232.116(3) provides several permissive factors the court
may use to save the parent-child relationship “based on the unique circumstances
of each case and the best interests of the child.” A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 113 (citation
omitted). The mother contends her bond with the children weighs against
termination. Section 232.116(3)(c) provides the court need not terminate a
parent’s rights if it finds by 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.” We acknowledge the children love their mother. Yet, they are
more bonded to each other, their stepfather, and their siblings. Their need for
permanency in a safe, sober, and consistent home environment supports the
termination of the mother’s parental rights. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.