IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1091
Filed August 21, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF C.P.,
Minor Child,
P.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child.
AFFIRMED.
Joseph P. Vogel of Vogel Law, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Chuck Fuson of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and 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 a child, born in
2018. She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by
the district court, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and the court should
have granted her six additional months to work toward reunification with the child. 1
We will address these arguments as one.
The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the child
pursuant to two statutory provisions. We may affirm if we find clear and convincing
evidence to support either of the grounds. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774
(Iowa 2012). We focus on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019), which requires
proof a child three years old or younger was adjudicated in need of assistance,
was removed from the physical custody of the parents for the previous six
consecutive months, and could not be returned to the parents’ custody.
The child was removed from the mother’s custody shortly after birth based
on the mother’s positive test for methamphetamine and heroin two months before
the child’s birth as well as two positive tests for methamphetamine one month
before the child’s birth. At the time of the removal hearing, the court also
considered a positive umbilical cord test result for amphetamines,
methamphetamine, and oxycodone.
The child was adjudicated in need of assistance. He remained out of the
mother’s custody through the termination hearing six months later. At a hearing
on the State’s petition to terminate parental rights, the mother did not ask to have
1
The father’s parental rights also were terminated. He did not appeal.
3
the child immediately returned to her; she simply sought additional time to address
her addictions. She acknowledged her failure to participate in any substance-
abuse treatment during the pendency of the case and admitted the need to begin
an inpatient drug treatment program, but she only placed her name on the waiting
list eight days before the termination hearing. She did not know when a bed would
become available.2
The mother also admitted to not visiting the child for four of the six months
preceding the termination hearing. Her failure to actively engage with the child
and her ongoing relationship with her drug-using boyfriend support the district
court’s finding that the child could not be returned to her custody. Although the
mother moved into her parents’ home one day before the termination hearing, she
essentially conceded her relocation alone would not allow her to gain immediate
custody of the child. When asked if her child should have to wait until she was
ready to move toward sobriety, she responded, “No, he shouldn’t have to wait.”
On our de novo review, we conclude the State proved by clear and
convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights is warranted
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h).
Termination must also be in the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). Eight days before the termination hearing, a service provider
determined the mother met the criteria for “severe opioid use disorder in early
remission” and “severe amphetamine-type substance use disorder.” She opined
the mother had advanced no further than “the preparation stage of change.” The
2
Although the mother stated she was given a referral for another program a month before
the termination hearing, she testified she could not reach the identified contact person.
4
mother admitted as much, asking only to be given “another chance.” In light of her
previous failed attempts at treatment and sobriety, we conclude termination is in
the child’s best interests. For the same reason, we agree with the district court’s
decision to not grant the mother six additional months to work toward reunification.
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.
AFFIRMED.