IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1148
Filed September 26, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF M.W., M.C., T.C., D.C., G.C., and A.C.,
Minor Children,
C.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Deborah Farmer
Minot, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to
three of six children and concluding the State made reasonable efforts to reunify
the family. AFFIRMED.
Rachel C.B. Antonuccio of Public Defender’s Office, Iowa City, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Anthony A. Haughton of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids,
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
A mother, Carrie, appeals a juvenile court order involving her six children—
ages one, two, three, six, seven and nine years. The order terminated her parental
relationship with the three youngest children and rejected her reasonable-efforts
challenge regarding all six children. On appeal, Carrie claims the State did not
make a satisfactory effort to reunify the family because social workers suspended
her visitation with the children. She contends the State did not present clear and
convincing evidence termination was warranted under Iowa Code
subsections 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2018). And she argues the juvenile court
should have decided against termination because of her strong bond with the
children. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). After considering Carrie’s claims in light
of the entire record, we concur with the juvenile court’s meticulous and well-
reasoned termination order.1
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Carrie had her oldest child, M.W., in 2008, two years after graduating from
high school. She separated from the child’s father, Murray, a few months after
giving birth. Joe is the father of the other five children. Neither father is a party to
this appeal. In 2009, Joe and Carrie moved into a trailer, which remained Carrie’s
residence throughout this case. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
1
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo, which means examining
both the facts and law and adjudicating anew those issues preserved and presented. See
In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478, 480 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). We are not bound by the juvenile
court’s factual findings, but we give them weight, especially when witness credibility is key
to the outcome. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). The State must offer
clear and convincing proof, which means we have no “serious or substantial doubts as to
the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d
703, 706 (Iowa 2010) (quoting In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000)).
3
intervened with this family in 2015 and 2016 due to the children’s unsanitary and
unsafe living conditions.
In February 2017, Michelle Schuerer, the Family Safety, Risk, and
Permanency (FSRP) worker, started providing services to the family. She noted
the filthy condition of the home, including “bugs crawling on the floor,” open trash
bags, dirty diapers, mice feces, and holes in the wall exposing wiring near the
bathtub. Schuerer recalled: “Carrie was there with five children at the time . . . .
And the children just kind of seemed to be running round doing whatever they
desired.” Schuerer also reported the parents left power tools within reach of the
children. The family did not have enough beds for all the children. The children
reported being hungry and anxious about food. The parents had not been bathing
the children because the tub had a hole in it. The children also had unmet medical
and dental needs.
Although Joe and Carrie started home improvement projects, they never
really eliminated the clutter, bug and mice infestations, sewage backups, and other
hazards.2 In early summer 2017, the child protection services of the DHS found a
denial of critical care for lack of proper supervision of the children. When Schuerer
found the household “more chaotic than normal” a few days later, Carrie said she
could not do much to calm the situation due to her pregnancy. Carrie also told the
FSRP worker she did not trust Joe to care for the children on his own because of
his mental-health condition. Carrie’s youngest, A.C., was born in June 2017.
2
In addition to Joe and Carrie, two other adults were staying in the trailer. Carrie was not
successful in evicting them until late December 2017.
4
In July the State filed a petition alleging five children were children in need
of assistance (CINA) due to the unsafe conditions in the home. In October 2017,
Carrie stipulated to the CINA adjudication. The juvenile court issued an order for
temporary removal, based in part on allegations from M.W. that Joe “is mean to
her and threatens to throw her out the door” and the only time he is nice to her is
when he is tickling her upper thigh area.
In November and December 2017, FSRP worker Schuerer supervised
twelve visits between the parents and the six children. The juvenile court
accurately described their interactions as “ongoing chaos.” Carrie was so
overwhelmed and unengaged, the children sometimes asked to end the visits
early. After one visit, Carrie’s seven-year-old son, M.C., poignantly explained why
he was happy to go back to his foster home: they “keep me clean, eat dinner with
me, and read me bedtime stories.” The children also reported having seen Joe
place his hands around Carrie’s neck. In late December, Carrie obtained a
domestic abuse protective order prohibiting Joe from contacting her.
In a January 2018 review order, the juvenile court expressed its
disappointment with the parents’ lack of progress since removal. The court
discovered from the FSRP reports “the neglect in the home was even more severe
than was previously assessed.” The court observed: “each of the children suffered
developmental and/or educational delays in the family home, some of which
were severe, as evidenced by the progress that they have made since removal.”
The court also expressed concern about the negative impact on the children
resulting from their visits with Carrie.
5
In late January, seven-year-old T.C. disclosed “some concerning things he
had seen on the computer with his father.” This disclosure prompted another
abuse assessment by DHS child protection workers. T.C.’s interview at the Child
Protection Center suggested the children were exposed to inappropriate sexual
contact and explicit materials.3
In February 2018, Carrie filed a motion for reasonable efforts, asserting the
DHS had recently informed her it was cancelling her visitation with all of the
children because of a child abuse investigation but did not divulge the nature of
the allegations. That same month, the police executed a search warrant and
seized a computer from her home.4 Police also found Joe hiding in a closet.
In March, Carrie updated the reasonable-efforts motion, denying any
inappropriate contact between her and T.C. (or any of the children) and asserting
she was in
an extremely difficult position, because the forensic examination of
the items seized by search warrant will not be complete for nine to
twelve months. Permanency for the younger three children is set for
March 19, 2018, and permanency for the older three will likely be set
in October of 2018, far before the forensic examination is completed.
The court decided visitation should remain suspended pending an evidentiary
hearing. The DHS restarted Carrie’s visits with the youngest child, A.C., in April.
Later that month, the State filed petitions to terminate parental rights with respect
to D.C., G.C., and A.C., all of whom were under four years of age.
3
For example, the children had access to Carrie’s cell phone during visitations. In a later
search of Carrie’s phone, a police detective found naked photos of Carrie and videos of
her masturbating intermingled with photos of the children. Carrie admitted posting the
explicit photos to an internet dating site.
4
On February 2, the police received a tip from a neighbor who had seen Joe tossing a
laptop computer out the window. The neighbor retrieved the laptop and turned it over to
authorities.
6
The evidentiary hearing on Carrie’s reasonable-efforts motion occurred in
early May, combined with the permanency and termination-of-parental-rights
hearing for the three youngest children. Carrie testified she experienced
depression and anxiety her whole life. She acknowledged that in early 2018 her
“mental state wasn’t at the best” but asserted, “I’m not the same person I was six
months ago. I’m not even the same person who I was two months ago.” As
evidence of her progress, Carrie cited her new part-time job and a more effective
medication regime. She also said she had taken on the project of cleaning and
renovating her home but acknowledged it was not yet complete. Carrie told the
court she had a bond with each of the six children and her goal was to “continue
to work on the trailer and get things back in order, to get all six kids home.”
In June, the juvenile court rejected Carrie’s reasonable-efforts motion and
terminated her parental relationship with D.C., G.C., and A.C under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h).5 Carrie appeals both aspects of the ruling.
II. Analysis
A. Reasonable Efforts
Carrie argues the DHS “failed to properly manage” the CINA cases and did
not meet its reasonable-efforts obligation. As her principal complaint, she points
to the suspension of her visitation with all of the children following T.C.’s
concerning statements.
The code requires the DHS to exert every reasonable effort to return
children to their home—consistent with their best interests. Iowa Code
5
The juvenile court clarified in an August 6, 2018 order nunc pro tunc that it was
terminating the mother’s rights under paragraph (h) only.
7
§ 232.102(6)(b). “Reasonable efforts” include services offered to eliminate the
need for removal or to make it possible for the children to safely return to the family
home. Id. The duty to make reasonable efforts is not “a strict substantive
requirement of termination,” but the extent of the measures taken by the DHS
“impacts the burden of proving those elements of termination which require
reunification efforts.” C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493. The concept of reasonable efforts
often focuses on visitation designed to enable reunification while protecting the
children from the harm triggering removal. See In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345
(Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (explaining visitation “cannot be considered in a vacuum”
because it is only one element in a comprehensive approach to returning the
children home).
The juvenile court determined “[s]uspension of visits was necessary for the
protection of the children, both because of the new allegations and because of the
distress the children were suffering during visits.” We agree. In finding the DHS
made reasonable reunification efforts, the court also offered this accurate
assessment of Carrie’s stalled momentum:
Visitation was provided twice per week from October 2017 through
February 9, 2018. Carrie’s visits were never increased solely due to
her lack of progress. She did not take full advantage of the school’s
invitation to attend lunches with the older children. She did not call
the children. She was never able to transport the children due to not
having adequate seating and child restraints in her vehicle. She was
never able to have visitation in the family home due to her failure to
make it safe and habitable. She was never able to meet visit
expectations during supervised visits.
Like the juvenile court, we find the DHS fulfilled its statutory duty to offer a
reasonable array of services aimed at moving the family toward reunification.
Carrie is not entitled to relief on this claim.
8
B. Termination of Parental Rights
The juvenile court ended Carrie’s parental relationship with the three
youngest children based on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). Under that
subsection, the State must prove:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty day.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child
cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
in section 232.102 at the present time.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h); see In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014)
(identifying relevant time in fourth element as date of termination hearing).
On appeal, Carrie claims the children could be returned to her care at the
present time. The record belies that claim. Carrie admitted at the hearing she
needed more time to work on her parenting skills. She was still “working on” basic
offerings like providing better hygiene and nutrition for the young children. And
Carrie had not completed the necessary renovations to the trailer so that it could
be habitable for the family.
Carrie alternatively contends the juvenile court should have granted her “an
extension of time” because of the bond she shared with the children. Carrie
conflates two disparate notions here—the ability of a juvenile court to delay
permanency under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) if the need for removal will no
longer exist at the end of an additional six-month period and the option of the
juvenile court not to terminate parental rights under section 232.116(3)(c) if “[t]here
9
is 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.” Neither
concept requires reversal of the juvenile court here. Carrie has not demonstrated
the sustained progress that would warrant a delay in permanency. And the record
reveals no clear and convincing evidence the termination will be detrimental to the
children due to their close bond with Carrie. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The
children are adoptable and have formed strong, trusting bonds with their
caregivers. Termination of Carrie’s parental rights was proper.
AFFIRMED.