IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1130
Filed September 28, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF M.L. and K.S.,
Minor children,
H.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, Peter B. Newell,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights
to two of her three children. AFFIRMED.
Linnea N. Nicol of Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Shanna M. Chevalier of Laird & Luhring Law Office, Waverly, guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
The children at issue in this appeal are thirteen-year-old M.L. and one-
year-old K.S. Their mother has struggled with substance abuse. The mother
appeals the termination order, contending (1) severing the parent-child
relationship is not in the best interests of M.L. or K.S. because of their strong
bond with her; (2) termination was not necessary to protect the children when the
mother retained her parental rights to a third child, seven-year-old D.S.;
(3) guardianship would be a preferred permanency plan, and (4) termination was
improper because it impacted the sibling relationships among M.L., K.S. and D.S.
After our independent review of the record,1 we reach the same
conclusion as the juvenile court. The mother is unable to fulfill the role of a
stable parent due to her drug usage and other illegal activities. M.L. and K.S. are
well-integrated into their foster families and potential adoption is in their best
interests. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
The welfare of these children came to the State’s attention in 2014 when
M.L. and D.S. were not attending school on a regular basis. The mother had
tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana that spring and the
Department of Human Services (DHS) had concerns M.L. had been “touched
inappropriately” by a family friend, but M.L. reported her mother did not believe
her allegations. The juvenile court adjudicated M.L. and D.S. as children in need
1
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa
2016). “‘We are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact, but we do give them
weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.’” Id. (quoting In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010)).
3
of assistance (CINA) in October 2014. The mother was on probation for a
burglary conviction. The mother underwent repeated substance-abuse
evaluations in 2014, but she did not complete treatment.
K.S. was born in March 2015. Although K.S. tested positive for
methamphetamine, opiates, and codeine at birth, the mother denied using any of
those substances.2 At that time, the DHS sought removal of K.S., as well as M.L.
and D.S., from the mother’s care. The DHS placed D.S. in the care of his father,
Scott.3 The DHS placed M.L. and D.S. with foster families.
During the ensuing year, the mother repeatedly tested positive for
controlled substances. She also was charged with forgery, theft, and unlawful
possession of a prescription drug. She admitted violating her probation and
pleaded guilty to forgery. The mother’s visits with the children remained fully
supervised during that year. The service provider believed the mother attended
some visitations while under the influence of controlled substances.
In March 2016, the State filed a petition for termination of the mother’s
parental rights to K.S. and M.L. The court held a two-day hearing on the petition
in May and June. On July 1, 2016, the juvenile court issued its order terminating
the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) (as to M.L.),
(h) (as to K.S.), and (l) (as to both children) (2015). The mother filed a timely
petition on appeal.
2
The mother did stipulate K.S. was a CINA under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(o).
3
All three children have different fathers. M.L.’s father is deceased. The juvenile court
terminated the parental rights of K.S.’s father, who is not a party to this appeal.
4
II. Analysis of Mother’s Arguments
The decision to terminate parental rights under chapter 232 must follow a
three-step analysis. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). First, the
juvenile court must decide if the State has established a ground for termination
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1). Id. Second, if the State has established a
statutory ground, the court must apply the framework set out in section
232.116(2) to decide if proceeding with termination serves the children’s best
interests. Id. Third, if the statutory best-interests framework supports
termination, the court must consider any factors in section 232.116(3) that may
tip the scales away from termination of parental rights. Id.
The mother does not challenge the statutory bases for the termination.
Instead, she raises a best-interest argument, alleging the juvenile court should
have opted not to terminate based on the strong bond between the children and
their mother. Under section 232.116(3)(c), the court may deny a termination
petition if it finds “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.”
In this case, the record does show that the mother is bonded with K.S. and
has good interactions with the young child during the supervised visits. The
service provider also testified to a close, caring connection between the mother
and M.L., but described their relationship as “much like siblings.” The children’s
guardian ad litem provided information that M.L. was frustrated that her mother
was not making more progress. For about six weeks, M.L. declined to attend
visitations. The DHS worker testified M.L.’s mental health was adversely
5
affected by contact with her mother. Moreover, M.L. was well-integrated into her
foster family. The record also showed K.S. had a strong bond with her foster
parents.
Given the mother’s inability to stem her substance abuse and criminal
activity while her children were removed, we agree with the juvenile court’s
determination that the children’s safety, long-term nurturing and growth, and
physical, mental, and emotional needs would be better served by termination of
parental rights notwithstanding their bond. See Iowa Code §§ 232.116(2),
232.113(3)(c); see also In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 709 (holding that in analyzing
the (3)(c) exception, “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 children’s] developing needs”).
The mother’s remaining contentions concerning the preservation of her
parental rights to a third child, the propriety of a guardianship, and the impact of
termination on the sibling relationships were not discussed in the termination
ruling. The mother did not seek to enlarge or amend the findings. Accordingly,
we do not address those concerns on appeal. See In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d
867, 872 (Iowa 1994).
AFFIRMED.