IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 4-036 / 13-1950
Filed February 5, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.,
Minor Child,
L.M.F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
W. Eric Nelson of State Public Defender Office, Cedar Rapids, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Jerry Vander Sanden, County Attorney, and Rebecca Belcher,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
David N. Nadler, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her five-year-old
daughter, S.L.1 The mother’s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) and (i) (2013). She asserts on appeal that the guardian ad
litem failed to prove there was clear and convincing evidence the child could not
be returned to her custody at the present time, see Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4),
and failed to prove there was clear and convincing evidence that the offer or
receipt of services would not correct the conditions that led to the abuse or
neglect of the child within a reasonable period, see Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(i)(3).
She also asserts it was not in her daughter’s best interests to terminate her
parental rights. Upon our de novo review, we conclude the guardian ad litem has
proved the child cannot be returned to the custody of the mother at the present
time. We also find it is in the child’s best interests to terminate the mother’s
parental rights.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
The mother has a history of drug abuse and mental health issues. The
child was removed from the mother’s home in April 2010 and adjudicated a child
in need of assistance the following month, when the child was just under two
years of age, due to concerns over the cleanliness of the home, the mother’s use
of cocaine, and the supervision of the child. The mother’s other three children
were also removed from the mother’s care at that time. The child was placed in
the care of her paternal grandmother. A little over a year after the removal, the
1
The court also terminated the parental rights of the child’s legal father and biological
father; neither father appeals the termination order.
3
child was placed in her biological father’s care. However, the child was removed
from his home approximately six months later due to his drug use. The child was
again placed in her paternal grandmother’s home.
After another year, a trial home placement with the mother began in
January 2012. At trial, the paternal grandmother stated that the child stayed with
her a significant amount of time during the trial home placement with the mother;
specifically, the child stayed with the paternal grandmother eighteen of thirty-one
overnights in March, fifteen of thirty overnights in April, and fourteen of thirty-one
overnights in May. Approximately five months after the trial home placement with
the mother began, the mother admitted to using methamphetamine while caring
for the child and using crack cocaine outside the presence of the child. The
mother also later admitted to using marijuana during the trial home placement
outside the presence of the child and was seen intoxicated while the child was in
her care. The mother also permitted the child’s biological father to have
unsupervised contact with the child in contravention to the direction of the
department of human services. The child was once again removed from the
mother’s care2 and placed with the paternal grandmother, where she remained at
the time of the termination hearing.
The mother has a long history of mental health problems, including
diagnoses of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and ADHD. She has been receiving
weekly individual therapy for three years. Her therapist testified at the
termination hearing that there has been a lot of chaos in the mother’s life and that
2
The older three children were also removed from the mother’s care at this time and
placed in the care of their respective paternal grandparents.
4
there has not been one person that can be said to have had a positive
relationship with the mother. Every person around her, including her former
romantic relationships and her immediate family members, has had a very “push
and pull toxic relationship” with the mother. The therapist did say the mother has
made huge progress but that progress is just the tip of the iceberg.
The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights after finding the
child had been removed from her parents’ care for over half of her life due to the
parents’ drug use and mental health problems. While the mother had made
progress in therapy over the past three years, she still had a long way to go, and
she had little to no insight and judgment into her choice of relationship with men.
She also maintained a relationship with her own father, which placed her at
substantial risk of abuse and exposing her children to abuse if they are in her
care.
The court went on to conclude it was in the child’s best interests to
terminate the mother’s rights as the child should not have to wait any longer for
her parents to demonstrate they can become responsible parents. The court did
not dispute the child had a bond with her mother and her siblings; however, given
the fact the paternal grandmother was willing to adopt the child and would
continue to allow appropriate contact, the court found the bond did not preclude
termination. The court also noted that the child has lived with her paternal
grandmother off and on for at least half of her life.
5
II. SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW.
We conduct a de novo review of termination of parental rights
proceedings. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Although we are not
bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact, we do give them weight, especially
in assessing the credibility of witnesses. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa
2010). An order terminating parental rights will be upheld if there is clear and
convincing evidence of the grounds for termination under section 232.116. Id.
“Evidence is considered ‘clear and convincing’ when there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” Id. (citations omitted).
III. CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
The mother challenges the guardian ad litem’s proof to support the
termination of her rights under section 232.116(1)(f) and 232.116(1)(i).
Specifically, she claims there was no evidence the child could not have been
returned to her care and there was no evidence the offer or receipt of services
would not correct the conditions that led to the abuse or neglect of the child
within a reasonable period. “We only need to find grounds to terminate parental
rights under one of the sections cited by the district court in order to affirm its
ruling.” In re R.K., 649 N.W.2d 18, 19 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000). We conclude there
is clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be returned to the
mother’s custody at the present time.
The mother notes she had made progress in her therapy and had recently
experienced an “epiphany” as to the persons and events that trigger her
6
substance abuse. She had taken steps to remove these bad influences from her
life. However, the mother had recently experienced a relapse a little over two
months before the first day of the termination hearing. She admitted using
methamphetamine while caring for the child during the trial home placement and
cocaine while with her father and uncle. She admitted using marijuana during
that time period, and she was also seen to be intoxicated while caring for the
child. While we applaud her recent progress in therapy and the steps she is
making to remove all of the bad influences in her life, which according to her
therapist included every interpersonal relationship in her life, this recent progress
does not indicate the child could have been returned to her care at the time of the
termination hearing. Even the mother admitted at the hearing that she would not
be capable of caring for the child the second day of the hearing because she was
pretty emotional but maybe could care for her “tomorrow.” Based on the long
history of substance abuse and mental health problems and the testimony from
the therapist that the mother, while making a great deal of progress, had just
touched the tip of the iceberg, we conclude the guardian ad litem proved by clear
and convincing evidence the child could not be turned to the mother’s care at the
present time.
IV. CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS AND CLOSENESS OF THE PARENT-CHILD
BOND.
The mother next contends that even if the guardian ad litem proved the
grounds for termination in this case, the court should not have terminated her
rights because it was not in the child’s best interests due to the closeness of her
7
bond with the child. The mother also points to the closeness of the bond
between the child and her half-siblings and the animosity between the adults in
the family, which she contends is not conducive to future ongoing contact
between the children.
In determining whether termination of a parent’s rights is in the child’s best
interests, we “give primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best
placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to
the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). There is also an exception to termination where “[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.” Id.
§ 232.116(3)(c).
We can glean insight for a determination of the child’s long-range best
interests from evidence of the parent’s past performance as this is often
indicative of the future care the parent is capable of providing. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012). The mother’s past performance is checkered with
instances of drug use while caring for the child. The last relapse came after five
months of a trial home placement and was only two months before the
termination hearing. The mother describes that she has had an “epiphany” as to
the persons and events that trigger her substance abuse, and she claims to have
taken steps to remove the bad influences from her life. However, we cannot ask
the child to wait in limbo while the mother puts her life back together. See In re
C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). We find it to be in the child’s best
8
interests to have stability and permanency now in the home of her paternal
grandmother, with whom she has spent half of her life.
The grandmother also indicated a willingness to allow the child to have
appropriate contact with her half-siblings, who at the time of the termination
hearing in this case appeared to be living with their respective paternal
grandparents. The ongoing sibling contact was supported by the paternal
grandparents of the middle two children, who were caring for them during the
termination hearing in this case. Based on the evidence in this case, we
conclude that the termination would not be detrimental to the child due to the
closeness of the bond with the mother, and her bond with her half-siblings can be
accommodated in this case due to the willingness of the respective paternal
grandparents to allow future ongoing contact.
AFFIRMED.