IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1081
Filed August 15, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF D.C.,
Minor Child,
C.A., 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 a child.
AFFIRMED.
Roberta J. Megel of State Public Defender Office, Council Bluffs, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Marti D. Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child, born in
2010.1 She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by
the district court and termination was not in the child’s best interests. On our de
novo review, we disagree with both contentions.
The child came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services
after a police officer observed him wandering outside. The child told the officer his
home lacked utilities. The officer went to the home and smelled what he believed
to be marijuana. The child was taken into protective custody. The child’s hair
sample tested positive for high levels of drugs, including methamphetamine.
The State applied to have the child temporarily removed from the mother’s
custody. The district court granted the application and transferred custody to the
department for placement with the mother’s brother. The child was subsequently
adjudicated in need of assistance and remained with his maternal uncle and wife
throughout the proceedings.
The mother was largely noncompliant with reunification services. A service
provider reported that, on one visit to the home in which she was staying, the
mother appeared intoxicated and exhibited inappropriate behaviors.
Meanwhile, the State charged the mother with child endangerment and
another crime. She pled guilty to child endangerment and was placed on formal
probation. The district court later revoked her probation. She spent two months
in jail and, in February 2018, was transitioned to a residential correctional facility.
1
The father is deceased.
3
At the termination hearing three months later, the mother testified she would
be released from the facility within thirty days. She conceded she would require
time to reunify with her child. She estimated the process would take about three
months.
The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to several
statutory provisions, including section 232.116(1)(f) (2018). The provision requires
proof of several elements, including proof the child cannot be returned to the
parent’s custody. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f). The court stated the child could
not “be returned to the care of his mother” as of the termination hearing date
because she was “at a facility which [did] not allow children,” “[h]er release [was]
dependent upon attaining housing,” and, “[e]ven if she secured housing,” she
would need to show she was in a position to care for the child. The court found
the mother’s expectation that she could reunify within ninety days was unrealistic,
given her past instability.
We fully concur in the district court’s findings. We also agree with the court’s
conclusion that termination was warranted under section 232.116(1)(f). Having
found clear and convincing evidence to support this ground for termination, we
need not address the remaining grounds cited by the district court. See In re S.R.,
600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
Termination must also serve the child’s best interests. See In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 39-40 (Iowa 2010). There is no question it did. The child was in a
precarious position at the time of his removal. His mother’s home was essentially
uninhabitable, and he lacked basic supervision. This was not the first time he was
without a functioning parent. As a result of the mother’s long-term addiction, the
4
child spent the better part of his life in his uncle’s care. Indeed, when the mother
was first confronted with the circumstances that led to this action, her response
was to recommend placement of the child with the uncle. Fourteen months later,
his home remained the safest option for the child.
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.