IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1867
Filed April 1, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF C.S., N.E., A.A., and N.J.,
Minor Children,
L.M.J., 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 to four children.
AFFIRMED.
John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Joseph W. Kertels of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020).
2
MAHAN, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four children, born
in 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2017.1 She contends the State failed to prove the
grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
This family most recently came to the attention of the department of human
services in September 2017,2 when the mother gave birth to N.J., who tested
positive for methamphetamine. The children were adjudicated in need of
assistance but remained in the mother’s care. The court ordered the mother to
participate in substance-abuse treatment, random drug testing, and family safety,
risk, and permanency services. The court also ordered the mother to “address all
outstanding warrants.”
A dispositional hearing took place in December 2017. The mother did not
appear. The court received reports of the mother’s dishonesty with service
providers, failure to engage in services, and failure to properly care for the children.
The department and guardian ad litem recommended the children be removed
from the mother’s care. The court ordered custody of the children with the
department for placement in foster care.
The mother obtained a substance-abuse evaluation in January 2018. She
tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. The mother entered the
1 The parental rights of children’s known and putative fathers were also terminated.
They do not appeal.
2 The department has been involved with this family “off and on since 2006,” shortly
after C.S.’s birth, due to the mother’s recurrent methamphetamine use, abuse in
the home, and safety concerns.
3
Women & Children’s Shelter, and the court ordered a trial home placement of the
children with the mother. Despite the State’s motion to terminate that placement,
the court maintained it “so long as [the mother] remained in that facility.” The court
ordered the mother to participate in family treatment court. Unfortunately, in April,
the mother was hospitalized due to a miscarriage, and her placement at the shelter
was discontinued. The juvenile court’s May 2018 dispositional review order
observed the mother had “made progress on her treatment goals” and she was
engaging in services and cooperating with providers. The court ordered the
children to remain in a trial home placement with the mother in the family home.
The mother’s progress was short-lived. She was soon released from family
treatment court “due to her noncompliance.” The mother was arrested for driving
while barred as a habitual offender. She was also ordered to serve jail sentences
for failure to pay child support and driving offenses. Following a December 2018
dispositional review hearing, the mother was taken into custody due to outstanding
warrants and her failure to appear. The children were placed in foster care.
The mother received a psychological evaluation in January 2019, which
recommended that she participate in therapy. The mother obtained a substance-
abuse evaluation in February, which recommended that she participate in
extensive outpatient treatment. The mother did not follow through with mental-
health or substance-abuse treatment. She also failed to participate in the
urinalysis (UA) call-in program as directed.
In March, the mother was arrested for driving while barred, and she pled
guilty. She was to be released from jail in April. The court’s April 2019 dispositional
4
review order noted the mother “has not engaged in the services recommended.”
The State filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights that same month.
The termination hearing was held in September. The mother was not
present. The court received evidence that since her release from jail in April, the
mother had missed “at least” twelve drug tests. The mother tested positive for
methamphetamine in May, but she denied any drug use. The department
caseworker further testified the mother had been discharged from substance-
abuse and mental-health treatment for failure to attend. The in-home support
worker testified the mother had been inconsistent with visitation and the oldest
child was refusing to attend visits. Caseworkers and the guardian ad litem
recommended termination of the mother’s parental rights.
Following the termination hearing, the court entered its order terminating
the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019)
(concerning C.S., N.E., and A.A.), (h) (concerning N.J.), and (l) (concerning all
children). The mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
Appellate review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings is de novo.
In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 2019). Our primary consideration is the
best interests of the children, In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006), the
defining elements of which are the children’s safety and need for a permanent
home. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).
III. Discussion
The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court. We may affirm if we find clear
5
and convincing evidence to support any of the statutory provisions. See In re A.B.,
815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We will focus on Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) and (h), which require proof of several elements including proof the
children could not be returned to the mother’s custody.
At the time of the termination hearing, the oldest child, who was thirteen
years old, had been removed and adjudicated in need of assistance four separate
times since his birth due in part to the mother’s methamphetamine use. The
juvenile court found, “Despite services offered/provided over the past decade, [the
mother] has been unable or unwilling to stabilize her lifestyle.” The court further
found:
[The mother] has a severe substance-related disorder and presents
a danger to herself or others as evidenced by prior acts. She has
not been actively involved in substance-abuse treatment. She tested
positive for methamphetamine use in May 2019 and there is no
evidence she has ceased her use. She has refused UA’s and has
not been consistent or honest in treatment. [The mother] was
discharged from services . . . in late-August due to her lack of
attendance. She was involved in their co-morbidity sessions, which
addressed both her mental health and chemical dependency. The
sessions were a combination of individual and group sessions. [The
mother] has never remained clean and sober over the past decade
despite the numerous treatment programs she was encouraged to
attend. There is clear and convincing evidence that [the mother]’s
prognosis indicates that the children will not be able to be returned
to [the mother]’s custody within a reasonable period of time
considering the children’s ages and need for a permanent home.
We concur in the court’s finding that the children could not be returned to the
mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) and (h) were satisfied.
The mother also challenges the services provided and claims she
demonstrated an ability to fully engage in services. To the contrary, the record
6
shows the mother was “not attending appointments, treatment, or visits with her
children on a regular basis.” The court bluntly observed the mother “did not appear
for this hearing—a hearing to determine the future of her relationship with her
children.” Meanwhile, the children had been placed in the same foster home since
May 2019. The children were “settling into” that home, and caseworkers reported
the children felt safe, comfortable, and happy there. The foster parents testified to
their willingness and desire to permanently integrate the children into their family
should parental rights be terminated. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b). The
guardian ad litem opined the children needed permanency, stating the mother “had
more than ample time to prove that she can parent and she’s not able to.”
We conclude termination is in the children’s best interests, and we affirm
the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of C.S., N.E., A.A., and N.J., Minor Children
Combined Opinion