IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0257
Filed May 12, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF O.K. and C.K.,
Minor Children,
M.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Mary L. Timko,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Dean A. Fankhauser of Vriezelaar, Tigges, Edgington, Bottaro, Boden &
Lessman, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Chandlor Collins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Lori Kolpin of Kolpin Law Firm P.C., Aurelia, attorney and guardian ad litem
for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., May, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021).
2
CARR, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, born
in 2016 and 2017. She challenges the juvenile court’s determination that
termination is in the children’s best interests. We review her claim de novo. See
In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018).
The juvenile court removed the children from the home in June 2019 and
adjudicated them children in need of assistance (CINA) in September 2019 due to
concerns about the condition of the mother’s apartment, her substance use, and
individuals she allowed to be around the children. The mother made little progress
in the year that followed. In August 2020, the State petitioned to terminate her
parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2020). The
termination proceedings were delayed to grant additional time for reunification, but
the mother squandered that time. After the termination hearing concluded in
January 2021, the juvenile court entered its order terminating the mother’s parental
rights on both grounds.
The only issue on appeal is whether terminating the mother’s parental rights
is in the children’s best interests. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re D.W, 791
N.W.2d 703, 706-07 (Iowa 2010). In determining best interests, we “give primary
consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-
term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The “defining
elements” are the child’s safety and “need for a permanent home.” In re H.S., 805
N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted).
3
The mother argues termination is contrary to the children’s best interests
because she has “a strong bond” with them, “is capable of providing long-term
nurturing care,” and “has taken great strides to address the issues that led to
adjudication and removal.” But the record contradicts these claims. The evidence
instead shows that the mother only engaged in services for short periods of time
and that any improvements she made were short lived. As a result, the concerns
that led to the CINA adjudication continue to exist. As the juvenile court observed,
the mother is unable to financially support the children, provide a safe physical
environment for the children, put the children’s needs ahead of her own, or
prioritize reunification over her need for male companionship. It is telling that the
mother failed to appear for the last day of the termination hearing and called two
and one-half hours later to say she did not hear her alarm or the phone calls and
text messages sent to inquire as to her whereabouts. As the juvenile court noted,
“This should have been a day when scheduling was priority number one. Clearly,
it was not.”
“While we recognize the law requires a ‘full measure of patience with
troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills,’ Iowa has built
this patience into the statutory scheme of Iowa Code chapter 232.” In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000) (citation omitted). Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e)
and (h) allow termination of parental rights after six months. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(e)(2), (h)(3). The mother had more than fifteen months in which to
remedy the concerns that led to the CINA adjudication and failed to do so. At the
same time, the children “grew more and more secure in their current placement.”
Considering the children’s need for safety and permanency, we agree that
4
terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. See In
re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (holding that “we cannot deprive a child
of permanency after the State has proved a ground for termination under section
232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to
provide a stable home for the child” (quoting In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa
2010))); accord In re R.J., 436 N.W.2d 630, 636 (Iowa 1989) (noting that “patience
on behalf of the parent can quickly translate into intolerable hardship for the
children”).
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the children.
AFFIRMED.