IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1312
Filed October 29, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF L.A. and L.A.,
Minor Children,
A.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Humboldt County, Kurt J. Stoebe,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children.
AFFIRMED.
Ashley M. Emick of Arends, Lee & Emick, Humboldt, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Jonathan Beaty, County Attorney, for appellee.
Darren Driscoll, of Johnson, Kramer, Good, Mulholland, Cochrane &
Driscoll, P.L.C., Fort Dodge, for father.
Marcy Lundberg, Fort Dodge, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
BOWER, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two
children.1 The mother claims she attempted to maintain contact with the children,
but was unable to do so because the Department of Human Services (DHS) and
the foster parents failed to facilitate contact. She also claims DHS did not
provide proper services. We find the mother has failed to maintain significant
and meaningful contact with the two children for at least the past six months. We
affirm the juvenile court order.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The children, L.A. and L.A., were born in 2011 and 2012, respectively.
The children resided with their mother until June 2013, when she voluntarily
placed them with her brother. The children were adjudicated in need of
assistance (CINA) in August, 2013. The mother tested positive for
methamphetamine the same month. The court ordered the mother to comply
with substance abuse evaluations and treatment. A permanency hearing was
held in February 2014. After the State discussed filing a termination of parental
rights petition, the mother agreed to enroll in the Jackson Treatment Center to
address her drug problems. The mother did poorly while at the Center, and was
ultimately asked to leave in March, 2014. At that time the mother terminated all
contact with DHS. Subsequently, DHS was unable to reach her by telephone or
locate her until June 2014.
1
The father’s rights were terminated at the same proceeding. The father does not
appeal.
3
The juvenile court found the mother abandoned the children. The court
noted the mother had “exercised decreasing contact and support of her children
as the case has transpired.” In the fall of 2013 the mother had little contact with
the children. After March 2014, she ceased all contact with the children and
DHS. The court found the mother’s request to have the children returned
“startling” given her utter lack of compliance with services or desire even to see
the children. The court found clear and convincing evidence sufficient to
terminate the mother's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(b), 232.2(1), 232.116(1)(e) (2013).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). We give weight to the juvenile court's findings, especially
assessing witness credibility, although we are not bound by them. 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 grounds for termination under
section 232.116. Id. Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no
serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of law
drawn from the evidence. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Iowa Code chapter 232, concerning the termination of parental rights,
follows a three-step analysis. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. The court must first
determine whether a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has been
established. Id. If a ground for termination has been established, the court must
4
apply the best-interest framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if the
grounds for termination should result in termination of parental rights. Id. Finally,
if the statutory best-interest framework supports termination of parental rights,
the court must consider if any of the statutory exceptions set out in section
232.116(3) weigh against the termination of parental rights. Id.
A. Grounds for Termination
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the order on any ground we find supported by
the record. D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) provides
that termination may be ordered when the child has been adjudicated a CINA,
the child has been removed from the physical custody of the parent for a period
of at least six consecutive months, and there is clear and convincing evidence
“the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the
child during the previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable
efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.”
Significant and meaningful contacts can include:
[T]he affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties
encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty,
in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the
child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in
the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain
communication with the child, and requires that the parents
establish and maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e)(3).
Here, the mother claims the court erred in its application of the third factor
of 232.116(1)(e), because DHS did not make reasonable efforts for reunification.
5
In support of her claim, the mother states she called the foster parents on
multiple occasions, but they were busy or just did not return her calls. The
mother blames DHS for not making an effort to contact her from March through
June 2014. She also blames DHS for not providing appropriate services. The
mother claims she now has suitable housing, is sober, is actively seeking
employment, and did her best to provide for the children during a difficult period
in her life.
We agree with the court that termination of the mother’s parental rights is
proper. Clear and convincing evidence shows the mother has not had any
contact with the children since early 2014. After being discharged from the
Center, the mother ceased all contact with DHS. As the court noted, her
compliance with services and desire to see the children steadily decreased, since
the children were adjudicated CINA, to essentially no contact in 2014.
For these reasons, we find the mother has failed to “make an affirmative
assumption . . . of the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent,” and
thus satisfying the third factor of 232.116(1)(e)(3). We find clear and convincing
evidence the mother has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with
the children during the previous six months, pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e)(3);
termination is appropriate.
B. Best Interests of the Child.
Even if a statutory ground for termination is met, a decision to terminate
must still be in the best interests of a child after a review of section 232.116(2).
P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 37. In determining the best interests of the child, we give
6
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 conditions and needs of the child.” See Iowa Code § 232.116(2).
Encouragingly, we note the children still reside with the mother’s brother. The
DHS social worker assigned to this case reported the children are doing well in
their uncle’s home. She also reported the uncle is willing and able to adopt the
children. We see no reason to disrupt this arrangement. For the reasons listed
above, we find it is in the best interests of the children to terminate the mother’s
parental rights.
IV. CONCLUSION
There is clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist
under section 232.116(1)(e), termination of the mother's parental rights is in the
children’s best interests pursuant to section 232.116(2), and no consequential
factor weighing against termination in section 232.116(3) requires a different
conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm termination of the mother's parental rights.
AFFIRMED.