IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0677
Filed June 25, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF I.J.,
Minor Child,
I.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District
Associate Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, I.J.
AFFIRMED.
Jane M. White of Jane White Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Christina M. Gonzalez,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Michael Sorci of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, I.J.
She asserts the factor that militates against termination found in Iowa Code
section 232.116(3)(a) (2013)—relative placement—should apply to preclude the
termination of her parental rights. The mother further claims the court should
have granted her an additional six months to access services. We conclude it is
in the child’s best interest for the mother’s parental rights to be terminated, and
the juvenile court correctly determined the considerations in subsection three
should not prevent termination. We further agree with the court that granting the
mother an additional six months would not serve to remedy her mental health,
substance abuse, and criminal history issues, particularly given her inability to
remedy these problems in the previous termination cases involving her two other
children. Consequently, we affirm.
I.J. was born August 2013, while the mother was incarcerated. A removal
hearing was held September 10, 2013. I.J. was removed from the mother’s care
due to her inability to care safely and adequately for the child given her
incarceration, unresolved substance abuse issues, mental health issues, and the
termination of her parental rights to her other two children. I.J. was placed in
foster care. A dispositional order was entered on November 4, 2013, noting the
primary permanency goal was to reunite I.J. with the mother. On February 21,
2014, a permanency hearing was held, and I.J. was placed with the father.1
1
The father has cooperated with all department of human services (DHS) services, and
it was found he was a minimally adequate custodian. I.J. remains under the supervision
of DHS.
3
The mother was released from jail in September 2013. The following
services were offered to her in an attempt to reunite her with the child:
supervised visitation; substance abuse evaluations; drug screens; family safety,
risk, and permanency services; family interactions; individual therapy; domestic
violence awareness classes; parenting classes; shelters; transportation
assistance; and services through the Polk County jail. She received four two-
hour supervised visits with I.J. each week. She attended the visits more or less
consistently from October to November 2013, but ceased attending after she
contracted tuberculosis and was contagious. She has not visited I.J. since the
end of November, and in the visits she did attend, the DHS worker noted she did
not display adequate parenting skills or exhibit a bond with I.J.
The mother has a significant criminal history, including convictions for
criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, probation violations, assault, domestic
abuse with injury, violation of a no contact order, public intoxication, interference
with official acts, and possession of drug paraphernalia. These convictions
occurred within the last year. Her most recent conviction arose from her assault
of the father during the termination hearing. She is currently unemployed and
does not have housing.
The mother also has severe mental health issues. While she maintains
she is consistently taking her medications, she does not dispute that these issues
are not resolved. She also has a problematic history with substance abuse,
which she has never adequately addressed. As of the date of the termination
hearing, she had not attended any substance abuse treatment. Due to these
problems and founded child abuse reports, the mother’s parental rights to her
4
two other children were terminated. Based on this history, the mother has been
involved with DHS since 2008.
The State filed a petition to terminate her parental rights as to I.J. on
December 18, 2013. A termination hearing was held on April 4, 2014, and on
April 8, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (g). 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 interest. Id.
The mother first argues that, because I.J. is placed with his father, the
juvenile court should have declined to terminate her parental rights under Iowa
Code section 232.116(3)(a). This paragraph states: “The court need not
terminate the relationship between the parent and child if the court finds . . . [a]
relative has legal custody of the child.” Id.; see also In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
38–39 (Iowa 2010) (holding “the court must consider if any of the exceptions
contained in section 232.116(3) allow the court not to terminate”).
We agree with the juvenile court’s decision that this paragraph should not
prevent the termination of the mother’s parental rights. As the court noted, “the
Mother’s relationship with the Father is more likely than not going to continue to
be volatile if they legally had to co-parent or [arrange] visits or other matters had
to be negotiated between them.” This opinion aligns with that of the DHS worker,
who stated:
This worker believes that termination is imperative despite the fact
that [the child] is placed with his father. There are no compelling
reasons to maintain this relationship. [The mother] continues to be
5
unsafe, there is no bond with this child and if rights remain intact,
this worker is concerned the father will struggle to keep this child
safe.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with these conclusions.
Consequently, the juvenile court properly declined to find the exception found in
paragraph (3)(a) should prevent termination of the mother’s parental rights.
We further conclude it is not in the child’s best interest to grant the mother
an additional six months so she may take advantage of services. As the DHS
report noted, the mother has yet to attend any treatment for her mental health or
substance abuse issues. She also shows no interest in remedying her criminal
conduct. In fact, this behavior has been ongoing since 2008. “We have
repeatedly followed the principle that the statutory time line must be followed and
children should not be forced to wait for their parent to grow up.” In re N.F., 579
N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(2). It is
clear the mother either cannot or will not address the issues that are preventing
her from being an adequate parent. Consequently, we agree with the juvenile
court that granting her an additional six months is not appropriate, and we affirm
the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.