IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1009
Filed August 16, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF A.W.,
Minor Child,
P.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M.
Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Roberta J. Megel of State Public Defender Office, Council Bluffs, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ana Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Norman L. Springer Jr. of McGinn, Springer & Noethe, P.L.C., Council
Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in
2012. She challenges the grounds for termination cited by the district court and
appears to argue termination was not in the child’s best interests.
The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to
several statutory provisions. We may affirm the termination decision if we find
clear and convincing evidence to support any of the cited grounds. In re S.R.,
600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). We focus on Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) (2016), which requires proof of several elements including proof the
child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody.
The mother had an eight-year history of methamphetamine abuse and a
sixteen-year history of marijuana abuse. The child was removed from the
mother’s care in May 2015 after she relapsed on methamphetamine while
serving as primary caretaker of the child. The State filed a child in need of
assistance petition. Initially, the court found the mother “was motivated to
achieve reunification.” A little over a year after this finding was made, the mother
was found to have relapsed on methamphetamine. She entered an inpatient
treatment program but stayed for only four days. She missed multiple drug tests
and effectively discontinued her participation in reunification services. Most
notably, the mother did not visit her child for seven months. After this extended
absence, she exercised a single supervised visit with her child.
The State petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the child.
The mother did not appear at the termination hearing and failed to inform her
3
attorney of her whereabouts. The department case manager testified the child
could not be returned to the mother’s custody.
On our de novo review, we conclude the State proved that termination
was warranted under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f). We further conclude
termination was in the child’s best interests, given the mother’s failure to commit
to reunification services and her failure to maintain a connection with her child.
See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39-40 (Iowa 2010).
AFFIRMED.