IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1193
Filed September 12, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., B.R., A.M., and R.T.,
Minor Children,
S.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker
Parry, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Jessica R. Noll of Deck Law, PLC, Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Michelle M. Hynes, Public Defenders Office, Sioux City, guardian ad litem
for minor children.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. We find there is
clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s
parental rights and termination is in the children’s best interests. We affirm the
decision of the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
S.T.R. is the mother of R.T., born 2004; A.M., born 2006; B.R., born 2012;
and A.R., born 2014. S.R. is the putative father of B.R. and A.R. S.T.R. and S.R.
will be collectively be referred to as the parents. Z.M. is the father of R.T. and A.M.
On October 15, 2016, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
investigated a report of the parents’ use of methamphetamine, transient life style,
domestic violence, and child abuse of R.T. and A.M. by S.R. 1 The older three
children were found at the mother’s parents’ house in Sioux City with the oldest
child left in charge; the parents and A.R. were not present. R.T., A.M., and B.R.
were removed and placed with a maternal aunt and uncle. A.M. and B.R. both
tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine, as did S.R.
The mother absconded with A.R. from October 15 until November 28. The
State attempted to locate the mother, including checking S.R.’s address in
Nebraska and at her parents’ house. S.R. told the court he did not know where
the mother and A.R. were, but he maintained daily contact with her and they
married on November 9 in South Dakota. The mother later testified she stayed at
1
Illinois child protective services had previously opened an investigation into the family,
but the family then left the state. DHS filed founded child abuse reports of all four children
by S.T.R. and S.R. for failure to provide proper supervision, bruises to R.T. and A.M., and
presence of illegal drugs in A.M. and B.R.
3
her aunt’s house in South Dakota during that period. A petition to terminate the
mother’s parental rights to the older three children was filed November 22, 2016.2
On November 28, 2016, the mother appeared at a removal hearing, surrendered
A.R. to DHS, and submitted to drug testing, which came back negative. A.R. was
placed in foster care.
B.R. was placed in the same foster care home with A.R. beginning in
December. R.T. and A.M. continued to live with their maternal aunt and began
having visitation with Z.M. The visitations progressed, and R.T. and A.M. were
placed in the home of Z.M. and his parents in May 2017. R.T. and A.M. repeatedly
expressed a desire to not see their mother to DHS workers and therapists.
On January 9, 2017, the court adjudicated the children as in need of
assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n)
(2016). The parents contested the State of Iowa’s jurisdiction over the children,
but the district court found it had jurisdiction and we affirmed. In re A.R., No. 17-
0598, 2017 WL 2665118, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 21, 2017).3
Throughout the CINA proceedings, the mother exhibited a pattern of starting
treatment, cooperating with DHS and court requests, and sometimes splitting up
with S.R. prior to a court hearing, then reverting after the hearing—stopping
treatment, failing to follow through with services, and seeing S.R. again. She was
generally uncooperative with DHS, refusing to sign timely waivers for DHS to
access evaluations or complete necessary documents. She refused to sign
2
The termination was stayed and then later dismissed after the mother returned.
3
The parents named a small town in Nebraska, over two hours from Sioux City, as their
home.
4
waivers so the children could receive necessary medical attention. Visitations
were suspended multiple times and were halted altogether in November 2017.
The mother and S.R. were arrested multiple times,4 spent time in jail, did
not always cooperate with drug and alcohol testing, sporadically complied with
recommended or ordered evaluations and treatments regarding substance abuse
or mental health, and continued substance abuse throughout the eighteen month
period. The parents established residences hundreds of miles from the children in
multiple states, the mother following S.R. to his distant job sites rather than staying
close to the children. S.R. was often combative, erratic, argumentative, and
occasionally threatening to state workers throughout the proceedings. Both
parents continuously shifted blame to others, repeatedly denied any wrongdoing,
and generally exhibited an inability to see anything harmful about their actions.
On February 6, 2018, the State filed a petition to terminate the parents’
rights. The mother entered substance-abuse treatment in March 2018.
On April 3, R.T. attempted to run away from home with another minor,
texting the mother, who picked them up with S.R. Rather than going to the
mother’s putative home or the home of other family members in the area, the
parents took the children over state lines, an hour and a half south into Nebraska
to stay with a friend of the mother’s. S.R. was in the vehicle, and he spent time at
the friend’s home. The mother told R.T. and R.T.’s friend to tell their parents and
guardians where they were, but she made no effort to speak with R.T.’s father or
4
At the time of the hearing a felony warrant from the state of Missouri was active for the
mother, and she had a pending warrant in Arkansas for failure to appear in court relating
to a felony arrest in early October 2016.
5
grandparents or with the friend’s parents. She did not contact DHS until the next
day and then dropped the children off at her parents’ house the day after that.
The court held a permanency review and termination hearing on April 10.
The court heard testimony from the mother, her aunt, and R.T. Z.M. was
represented at the hearing, and S.R. did not appear in person or by counsel. The
mother testified she lived with her aunt, had not had a job in eight years, and had
been separated from S.R. since January, when they were arrested while driving in
a stolen vehicle. She was in substance-abuse treatment and testified to being
sober for one month. The mother testified she was not in mental-health treatment,
and did not need any. She was uncertain of her future relationship with S.R.; she
testified she would be there for him if he needs her and wants to make sure he
recovers, admitting her co-dependency issues with him. She also claims to be
able to protect the children and keep them safe. Her aunt testified the mother had
not spent any night the previous week at the house. R.T. testified he thought the
mother would be able to protect him and the other children and asked to return to
the mother.
On June 27, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the children
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (f) (for R.T., A.M., and B.R.), (h) (for A.R.),
and (i) (for R.T., A.M., and B.R.) (2018).5 Custody of R.T. and A.M. remains with
Z.M. under DHS supervision; A.R. and B.R. were transferred to the custody of DHS
for adoptive placement. The mother appeals.
5
S.R.’s parental rights were terminated to A.R. under section 232.116(1)(d) and (h); his
rights to B.R. were terminated under section 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (i). He does not
appeal.
6
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings 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 children. In re K.C.,
660 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 2003).
We review the court’s denial of the motion for a continuance for abuse of
discretion. See In re R.B., 832 N.W.2d 375, 378 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013).
III. Request for Continuance
The mother requested a continuance of the termination hearing due to
having newly-appointed counsel. “The decision to grant or deny a motion for
continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” State v. Artzer, 609
N.W.2d 526, 530 (Iowa 2000). “A motion for continuance shall not be granted
except for good cause.” Iowa Ct. R. 8.5. “[W]e will reverse the denial of a
continuance only ‘if injustice will result to the party desiring the continuance.’” R.B.,
832 N.W.2d at 378 (quoting In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct. App.
1996)). “The concept of justice incorporates a prejudice component, which must
be viewed in a pragmatic fashion.” Id.
We note this was the fourth appointment of counsel for the mother. The
mother asked her first counsel to withdraw in November 2017, and her second filed
a motion to withdraw at the mother’s request on March 16, 2018. The mother did
7
not reapply for counsel until March 29, despite a court order to apply by March 23
and a hearing scheduled on March 30. Her first counsel was reappointed on her
request, but that counsel requested to withdraw due to the prior breakdown in the
relationship. The fourth counsel was appointed one week prior to the termination
hearing, on April 3.
The district court found the mother’s requests for counsel to withdraw and
for new court-appointed counsel to be a delay tactic. The court noted the mother
had been served the termination petition on February 9 and had two months to
prepare. The court also noted it had granted the mother two continuances since
service of the termination petition—for a February 13 permanency hearing and a
March 30 hearing on jurisdiction and preliminary matters.
We conclude the grounds for the continuance filed by the mother stem from
the actions of the mother. The mother had two months’ notice of the termination
hearing and chose to change counsel less than one month prior to the hearing.
The juvenile court may look at a parent’s past performance in determining whether
to grant a continuance. See In re T.D.H., 344 N.W.2d 268, 271 (Iowa Ct. App.
1983). The court’s decision was not unreasonable under the circumstances, and
we find the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to continue.
IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence
“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 subsection 232.116(1)(f) for R.T., A.M., and B.R., and (h) for A.R.
8
Subsection (f) allows the court to terminate parental rights where a child
four years or age or older has been adjudicated CINA, has been out of the parent’s
custody for twelve of the last eighteen months, and there is clear and convincing
evidence the child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(f). Subsection (h) is the same with an age requirement of three years
old or younger and only requiring removal for six of the last twelve months. Id.
§ 232.116(1)(h). The age, adjudication, and removal requirements have been met
for all four children.
The mother claims she is able to resume care of the children. She was
sober at the time of the termination hearing, had a suitable home for the children
with her aunt, and had separated from S.R. The mother testified she had no means
of support and was with S.R. one week prior to the hearing when she was
contacted by R.T. Not only did the mother see R.T. unsupervised against the
court’s order, she took him out of state to a place where he knew no adult other
than the mother and S.R., rather than the home she claimed to have established
for the children. The aunt whose home the mother claimed as her suitable
placement for the children testified the mother had not stayed a single night in the
past week. We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record the
children cannot be returned to the mother’s care pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) and (h). We affirm the juvenile court’s order.
V. Best Interests of the Children and Exceptions
The mother claims termination of her parental rights is not in the children’s
best interests. Even if a statutory ground for termination is met, a decision to
terminate must still be in the best interests of a child after a review of section
9
232.116(2). In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010). In determining the
children’s best interests, we “give primary consideration to the child[ren]’s safety,
to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the
child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the
child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2); P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. Once the State has
proven a ground for termination, we cannot deprive children of permanency on the
hope the parent will someday learn to parent and provide a stable home. P.L., 778
N.W.2d at 41.
The mother has not shown she has established a safe and stable home for
herself, much less for the children. She had not stayed in the home she testified
was her home for the children in at least a week. Less than a week before the
termination hearing, she knowingly helped R.T. and a second minor run away from
home, including placing R.T. in close proximity to his past abuser. Immediately
after this incident, R.T. changed from wanting his mother’s rights terminated to
wanting to live with her and his maternal grandparents. The court specifically
found the mother was unable to protect the children and her recent actions
exposed him to risk. We find it is in the children’s best interests to terminate the
mother’s parental rights.
The mother claims the court should not terminate her parental rights due to
her strong bond with the children. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). Alternatively,
the mother argues her rights as to R.T. and A.M. need not be terminated because
they are in the custody of a relative, their father. See id. § 232.116(3)(a).
Throughout the CINA and termination proceedings, the mother has
demonstrated little ability to place the best interests of the children first, placing her
10
relationship with S.R. above her bond with the children and their mental, emotional,
and physical needs. R.T. and A.M. refused to see or talk with the mother for almost
the entire eighteen months of removal, belying the “strong bond” claimed by the
mother. The mother refused permission for B.R. to receive needed medical
procedures for over six months, wanting to wait until B.R. returned to her custody
for the procedure, despite negative consequences to B.R.’s health. The children
have thrived in stable homes and school since their removal. At the time of the
termination hearing, the mother had not seen B.R. and A.R. in five months, with
no detrimental effects to them. We do not find a closeness of the parent–child
relationship.
The father of R.T. and A.M. requested the mother’s rights be terminated.
The mother has not shown any ability to co-parent with Z.M. The mother had not
even spoken with him in over a year, and she testified they did not have a good
relationship. We find the circumstances here do not merit applying the exception
section 232.116(3)(a), and that doing so would only subject these children to
further custodial litigation.
We agree with the juvenile court’s decision to terminate the mother’s
parental rights.
AFFIRMED.