In the Interest of V.C., B.C. and I.V. a/k/a I.G., Minor Children
This text of In the Interest of V.C., B.C. and I.V. a/k/a I.G., Minor Children (In the Interest of V.C., B.C. and I.V. a/k/a I.G., Minor Children) 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. 22-0381 Filed May 11, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF V.C., B.C., and I.V. a/k/a I.G., Minor Children,
B.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Kossuth County, Ann M. Gales,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Nellie D. O’Mara of O’Mara Wilson Law, PLLC, Mason City, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Gregory Stoebe, Humboldt, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
GREER, Judge.
Three siblings—V.C., B.C., and I.V.1—came to the attention of the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) in April 2019 following reports the mother
was using methamphetamine while caring for the children. The mother tested
positive for methamphetamine and initially agreed to participate in voluntary
services while keeping the children in the home. After she tested positive a second
time in January 2020, though, a safety plan was established and the children were
removed from the home; they have not been returned to the mother’s care since.
The children were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) in February.2
DHS first petitioned for termination of the mother’s parental rights in January
2021. However, following a hearing in March, the juvenile court granted a six-
month extension despite recognizing that the mother had made no discernable
progress toward reunification or sobriety.3 By the end of the six months, the mother
had started but left multiple rounds of substance-abuse treatment. She refused to
drug test for DHS and would not show up to appointments the department
scheduled, but one drug-treatment facility reported five tests came back positive
for methamphetamine between March and May of 2021. Eight other tests through
the facility were refused.
Despite her struggles, however, the mother called her children almost every
day while they were in foster care. The children are all in extracurricular activities,
1 I.V. was born in 2010, V.C. in 2014, and B.C. in 2015. 2 The State also took umbrage with the mother’s lack of employment and that her home had no furnace, but it was clear in the proceedings the main concern was her drug use. 3 The juvenile court explained the extension was granted because the children
were removed from a relative placement late in the case. 3
and the mother attended some of their events. While she did not consistently
attend supervised visitations, providers reported no safety concerns during the
interactions that did occur. The children and mother are undisputedly bonded,
though providers and the children’s foster placement reported the children grew
weary of their mother’s inconsistency and the uncertainty of their future. They are
currently all in the same pre-adoptive home and have adjusted well with their
placement; by all accounts, they are delightful children.
With the mother’s continuing drug use, DHS petitioned for termination of the
mother’s parental rights again in August. The termination hearing was held in
November 2021. The mother did not testify or present evidence. She argued that
the children should be returned to her or, in the alternative, she should be given
another six months. In a February 2022 order, the juvenile court terminated the
mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l)
(2021).4 She filed a timely appeal.
We review a termination of parental rights de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d
33, 40 (Iowa 2010). We follow a three-step analysis, considering (1) the statutory
grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), (2) the children’s
best interest as directed in section 232.116(2), and (3) permissive exceptions
found in section 232.116(3). In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706–07 (Iowa 2010).
“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
4The parental rights of the children’s fathers were also terminated. They are not parties to this appeal. 4
supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (2012). Section
232.116(1)(f) requires the State to prove:
(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.
The mother argues the State did not prove the grounds for termination by
clear and convincing evidence. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016)
(requiring clear and convincing evidence for all grounds for termination (citing Iowa
Code § 232.117(3))). It is undisputed the children are all over four years old, have
been adjudicated CINA, and have been removed from the mother’s care well over
the required time; and, the mother presents no argument that the children could
be returned to her care at the time of the termination hearing. See D.W., 791
N.W.2d at 707 (interpreting “at the present time” to mean “at the time of the
termination hearing”). Instead, she argues only that she has maintained significant
contact with the children.5 Without any challenge to 232.116(1)(f), then, we
consider the statutory grounds authorizing termination satisfied. See In re H.K.,
No. 20-0800, 2020 WL 4498156, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2020).
The mother intertwines the final two steps of our analysis, arguing the
children’s best interests are not served by termination because of the bond
between herself and the children. See Iowa Code 232.116(2), (3)(c) (allowing the
5 This argument relates to the requirements of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e). 5
court to forego termination when “[t]here 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”). There is no doubt that the mother loves the children
and vice versa, and we applaud the mother’s efforts to remain present in her
children’s lives. Still, she bears the burden of proving the bond outweighs the need
for removal, and she has not done so here. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 315
(Iowa 2021) (“Mom has failed to provide the clear and convincing evidence
necessary to show that, on balance, that bond makes termination more detrimental
than not.”); In re A.H., 950 N.W.2d 27, 42 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (“The mother bears
the burden to prove the permissive—not mandatory—factor [found in
232.116(3)(c)] applies to prevent termination.”). The children have expressed a
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 V.C., B.C. and I.V. a/k/a I.G., Minor Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-vc-bc-and-iv-aka-ig-minor-children-iowactapp-2022.