IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0725
Filed June 29, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF S.S.
Minor child,
K.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan C. Cox, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights
to her child. AFFIRMED.
Jane M. White of Jane M. White Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
The mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her
child, S.S., pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2015) (authorizing the
termination of parental rights, as relevant here, where “the child cannot be
returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at
the present time”). On appeal, the mother contends the State failed to prove the
ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination was not in
S.S.’s best interests, and the mother should have been granted a six-month
extension to work towards reunification.
The standard of review and controlling framework are well-established and
need not be repeated herein. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219–20 (Iowa
2016) (stating review is de novo and setting forth the applicable “three-step
analysis”).
S.S. was born in July 2013 and was in the mother’s care until June 2015.1
S.S. was removed after the family came to the attention of the Iowa Department
of Human Services (DHS) because the mother had threatened to kill herself and
was exhibiting signs of mental illness. Additionally, the mother was homeless at
the time. The mother had been previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress
disorder. She reported feeling depressed and paranoid.
S.S. was returned to her mother’s care on September 3, 2015, and
remained in the mother’s care until October 26, 2015. S.S. was removed again
1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He was not present for the
termination hearing, and he does not appeal.
3
when the mother was asked to leave a local transitional living program. The
mother had tampered with a sample for a drug screen, and when she was
caught, she admitted she would have tested positive for marijuana.
Around the same time S.S. was removed from her care for the second
time, the mother stopped participating in mental health treatment and stopped
attending medication management. According to the mother’s own admission,
she also hit two parked cars with her vehicle while she was intoxicated, wrecking
her own car in the process.
Between early December 2015 and early February 2016, the mother failed
to participate in any parenting time with S.S. Additionally, she missed a
permanency hearing in December. The mother missed three of four scheduled
parenting times leading up to the termination hearing on March 30, 2016.
At the hearing, the mother testified she was ready to make better choices
so S.S. could be returned to her care. However, the mother admitted she had
used marijuana three days prior to the hearing, and she had not reinitiated
mental health treatment or substance abuse treatment.2 The mother continued
to maintain she did not need substance abuse treatment because she could “do
it on [her] own”. She testified she had a job interview scheduled for the end of
the week but admitted that she had to turn down a job offer she received a
couple weeks prior because she knew she would fail the drug test upon which
the employment was conditioned. She also would not be able to accept the
2
In late February, the mother scheduled a therapy and medication management
appointment, but she did not attend and she did not reschedule. Additionally, the mother
testified she had called the transitional living program to see if she could enter the
program again, but they denied her reentry and she did not call or check in with any
other programs.
4
position from the upcoming interview if it was conditioned upon passing a drug
test in the near future. The mother was living with two roommates, at least one
of whom had previously illegally sold prescription medications.
The mother maintains the State did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence that S.S. could not be returned to her care at the time of the termination
hearing. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4). According to the mother’s own
testimony, at the time of the hearing, she was not attending mental health
treatment or substance abuse treatment. She had been disengaged with
services since October 2015, except for scheduled parenting time, which she
participated in intermittently at best. The mother was unemployed and still using
an illegal substance regularly. Moreover, the mother did not have stable
housing, and one of the friends she was living with had a questionable past with
prescription pills. As the juvenile court found, “The mother loves her daughter,
but has established a pattern of putting others before S.S. This includes drugs,
alcohol, and a boyfriend. The mother has not even started to make the
necessary changes for this important little girl or herself.” For all of these
reasons, there is clear and convincing evidence S.S. could not be returned to the
mother’s care.
The mother maintains termination is not in S.S.’s best interests because of
the bond the mother and S.S. share. Our consideration is not merely whether
there is a parent-child bond, “our consideration must center on whether the child
will be disadvantaged by termination, and whether the disadvantage overcomes”
the mother’s inability to provide for the child’s developing needs. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(2) (setting forth the
5
factors to be considered in determining the child’s best interests). S.S. has been
placed with the same foster family the entire time she has been removed from
the mother’s care. According to the guardian ad litem, the foster family was
“taking excellent care of” S.S. and was “willing and able” to adopt and care for
S.S. Termination enables S.S. to achieve permanency, and we believe that is in
her best interests. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014) (citing In re
J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (noting
the “defining elements in a child’s best interest” are the child’s safety and her
“need for a permanent home”)).
Finally, the mother maintains she should have been granted a six-month
extension. In order for the juvenile court to grant the mother an additional six
months to work towards reunification, the court is required to find “that the need
for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the
additional six-month period.” See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). Although the
mother did well for a short period of time early in the family’s involvement with
DHS, she has made no apparent progress since October 2015. She testified she
knew what she needed to do and was ready to start doing it, but her actions belie
her assertions. Additionally, the mother was not participating in mental health
treatment or medication management, in spite of her serious mental health
issues. We cannot say additional time would obviate the need for S.S.’s
removal.
We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental
rights to S.S.
AFFIRMED.