IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0486
Filed August 17, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF L.S. AND M.S.,
Minor children,
R.S, Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Louise M. Jacobs,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to two of her
children. AFFIRMED.
Kevin E. Hobbs, West Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Michael R. Sorci of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
The mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to two of
her children, L.S. and M.S., ages two and three, respectively, at the time of the
termination hearing.1 The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2015). We review
termination proceedings de novo, and we will affirm if any statutory ground is
supported by the record. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219, 222 (Iowa
2016). The controlling framework is well-established and need not be repeated.
See Id. at 219–20 (setting forth the applicable “three-step analysis”).
The mother maintains the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for
termination pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) by clear and convincing
evidence. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4) (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”). Additionally, the mother maintains termination was not in the children’s
best interests and permissive statutory factors make termination unnecessary.
The mother and her oldest child, who is not at issue in this case, were
previously involved with the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in 2009.
The child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance and ultimately placed
with his father.
The mother’s most recent involvement with DHS began in July 2014, after
the mother was found sleeping or passed out in a hot vehicle in a parking lot with
1
The parental rights of M.S.’s father were also terminated. He does not appeal. The
parental rights of L.S.’s father were not terminated, and both children were to be placed
in his care following the termination hearing.
3
L.S. and M.S. locked in the car with her. At the time, the mother had track marks
on her arm and she admitted that if she were tested for drugs, it would show she
had recently used methamphetamine.2 Since the children were removed in July
2014, the mother has started several substance abuse programs, but she has
not successfully completed one.3 Throughout the pendency of the case, the
mother lacked stable housing and employment. At the termination hearing in
February 2016, the mother was asked if she was in a position for the children to
be returned to her care. She responded, “I am, but I’m not, because I have
placement for them, but I haven’t completed treatment.” Additionally, the mother
had been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The mother testified she had
recently started seeing a psychiatrist and a therapist, but she had not signed a
release so DHS could confirm her statements, and she could not provide the
name of her therapist when asked. Based on these facts, there is clear and
convincing evidence the children could not be returned to the mother’s care.
The mother maintains termination is not in the children’s best interests
because they share a close bond with her; the caseworker also testified that the
children are bonded to their mother. However, 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
2
The mother has since denied that she intended to make such a statement, asserting at
different times either that she was coerced into making the statement or denying that
she meant she had recently used methamphetamine when she made the admission
about prior use.
3
In December 2014, a drug test provided by the mother showed she had recently used
methamphetamine and marijuana. Additionally, in March 2015, the mother was stopped
by police and a “glass narcotics pipe” was found on her person.
4
overcomes” the mother’s inability to provide for the children'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 factors to be considered in determining the child’s best
interests). Although the children and the mother share a bond, the caseworker
testified there is great concern whether the mother can handle caring for the
children, even for short periods of time, because the mother needs prompting to
feed the children and to change diapers or accompany the children to the
bathroom. Although the mother has some family supports that could help her at
times, she does not live with those family members. The children were to be
placed with L.S.’s father and he intended to adopt M.S. This would allow the
children to stay together and achieve permanency. We believe that is in their
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”)).
The mother also maintains termination would be detrimental to the
children due to the closeness of the parent-child bond. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(3)(c). The children had been out of the mother’s care approximately
eighteen months at the time of the termination hearing. Although they shared a
bond, the mother was still spending only supervised time with the children four
times per week. Moreover, the father told the caseworker he would allow the
mother to continue visiting the children in a supervised capacity. The language
of 232.116(3) is permissive, and the juvenile court correctly decided any bond
5
was insufficient to justify declining to order termination. See In re D.S., 806
N.W.2d 458, 474–75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).
Finally, the mother maintains termination was not necessary because the
children were placed with a family member at the time of the termination hearing.
See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a) (“The court need not terminate the relationship
between the parent and the child[ren] if . . . [a] relative has legal custody of the
children.”). The children were not in the legal custody of a family member at the
time of the hearing, making the exception inapplicable.
For these reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the
mother’s parental rights to her children, L.S. and M.S.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of L.S. and M.S., Minor Children, R.s, Mother
Combined Opinion