IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1781
Filed February 7, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF D.H.-W.,
Minor Child,
M.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Mary L.
McCollum Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Kara L. Minnihan of Minnihan Law Firm, Onawa, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Lisa K. Mazurek of Miller, Miller, Miller, P.C., Cherokee, guardian ad litem
for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.1 We find the
termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence and termination is in
the best interest of the child. We affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
D.H.-W. was born in 2014. D.H.-W.’s siblings, born in 1996 and 2006,
were previously adjudicated as Children in Need of Assistance (CINA) and
removed from the mother’s care in response to substance-abuse issues,
domestic-violence concerns, and the mother’s inability to maintain stable
employment and housing. The mother’s parental rights to the older children were
not terminated. However, while pregnant with D.H.-W. the mother continued to
use controlled substances. After D.H.-W.’s birth, domestic violence returned to
the mother’s home. D.H.-W.’s father was charged with two counts of domestic
abuse assault and harassment in the first degree.
A CINA petition was filed December 22, 2015, concerning D.H.-W. due to
domestic violence and substance abuse. Prior to the CINA hearing, the mother,
grandmother, and the mother’s adult child were arrested and charged with
delivery of prescription drugs. During the drug buy, D.H.-W. was in the care of a
friend with a lengthy criminal history, including charges of domestic abuse. It
was also determined that during previous drug buys, D.H.-W. was present in the
vehicle.
D.H.-W. was adjudicated CINA in February 2016. The mother scheduled
a substance-abuse evaluation and therapy. D.H.-W. was placed in foster care as
1
D.H.-W.’s father’s parental rights were also terminated. He has not appealed.
3
neither parent was able to care for the child. The mother began supervised
visitation. At a permanency review hearing, the mother showed improvement.
She was cooperative with treatment, was working part-time, and had begun to
remove herself from individuals who triggered her substance-abuse issues. The
mother consistently attended family treatment court. When safety issues at her
home were pointed out, the mother showed commitment to addressing those
problems, and she showed interest in learning to meet D.H.-W.’s needs. The
mother actively engaged with D.H.-W. during visits and showed a strong bond
with the child. Seeing the significant improvement made by the mother, the
juvenile court allowed the mother an additional six months to work towards
reunification.
The juvenile court set a hearing for modification of permanency for April 4,
2017. At the time of the hearing, the mother had finally secured an apartment,
but had not fully moved in. The juvenile court expressed concern regarding the
mother’s unhealthy relationships with her mother and her adult child, as the three
would often use illegal substances together. However, the mother no longer
suffered from chronic pain, owned her own vehicle, and had a valid driver’s
license.
The termination hearing was held July 20. Earlier in the month, the
mother went camping with her two older children, her father and mother, and her
brother and sister-in-law. The mother had previously identified her sister-in-law
as a negative person she should not associate with. During the trip, illegal
substances were used although the mother claims she did not partake. A fight
4
between the mother’s adult child and the sister-in-law broke out, but the mother
did not take her younger child and leave even though she was able.
Additionally, after the camping trip the mother helped her adult child move.
During the move the child and a friend taunted her and encouraged her to smoke
marijuana. Unable to withstand the pressure, the mother gave in and smoked.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 232.116(1)(d), (h), and (l) (2017), on October 20, 2017. The mother
now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is needed to
establish the grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, there is no serious or
substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the
evidence. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L.,
459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The mother claims there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support
termination of her parental rights. “When the juvenile court terminates parental
rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s
order on any ground we find supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We will focus on section 232.116(1)(h).
5
The mother only contests Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)(4), requiring
the child be able to be returned at the time of the termination hearing. The
mother claims she made significant progress in addressing the underlying issues.
She had obtained temporary employment with the possibility of a more stable
and permanent job, maintained her own apartment, decreased her involvement
with negative people, remained sober for over one year, and was complying with
the terms of her probation.
The mother has made progress in addressing many of the initial concerns
in this case. However, the mother has often regressed or failed to maintain her
progress. She touts her sobriety yet was goaded into smoking marijuana by her
adult child. She points out her independent housing but took more than a year to
secure her apartment, delayed moving in, and the juvenile court expressed
concern she continued to reside at her mother’s home. The mother also states
she has reduced her interactions with negative people in her life; however, at the
time of the termination hearing she continued to associate with the two most
negative people in her life, her adult son and her mother. A parent’s past
performance indicates future action. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa
1997) (citations omitted).
The mother has shown she understands what she needs to do in order to
be reunited with her child. She has shown she is capable of doing those things.
However, she has also shown she cannot or will not maintain the progress she
has made. We find D.H.-W. could not be returned to the mother at the time of
termination.
6
IV. Best Interests
The mother also claims termination is not in the best interests of D.H.-W.
After finding a ground for termination exists we are to “consider the factors under
section 232.116(2). Section 232.116(2) requires us to give 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 condition and
needs of the child.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
We find D.H.-W.’s best interests are served by termination. The mother
has not made sufficient progress in addressing the underlying issues in this case.
Additionally, the foster home D.H.-W. is currently in has made significant
progress in addressing in the child’s developmental issues. The stability and
nurturing D.H.-W. will continue to receive far outweighs the short-term
uncertainty. Termination is in the best interests of the child.
V. Exceptions
Finally, the mother claims her bond with D.H.-W. is so strong as to
preclude termination. The juvenile court may decide not to terminate parental
rights if any exception set out in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) is shown. “The
court has discretion, based on the unique circumstances of each case and the
best interests of the child, whether to apply the factors in this section to save the
parent-child relationship.” In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 475 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).
The mother claims D.H.-W. “is very bonded to her, he loves her, and he
knows that she is his mother.” While this emotional bond certainly exists and
termination will cause some emotional distress for D.H.-W., we find the increased
7
stability in a home capable and willing to care for him outweighs the temporary
distress of termination. We therefore affirm the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.