IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0810
Filed September 1, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF C.R. and G.R.,
Minor Children,
J.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Nancy L. Pietz, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Barbara Durden Davis of Barbara Durden Davis, P.C., West Des Moines,
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Cathleen Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines, attorney for minor
child G.R.
Zachary C. Priebe of Jeff Carter Law Offices, P.C., Des Moines, attorney
for minor child C.R.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. We find the
grounds for termination have been established, an extension is not warranted,
termination is in the best interests of the children, and the exceptions to termination
do not apply. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings.
J.G. is the mother of C.R. and G.R., who were born in 2010. D.R. is the
biological father of the children.1
In June 2019, the department of human services (DHS) investigated the
mother following allegations of her methamphetamine use and domestic abuse
between the mother and her significant other, L.R., in front of the children. The
State filed child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petitions for C.R. and G.R., who
were adjudicated as CINA on August 5 but remained in the mother’s custody under
supervision by DHS.
C.R. and G.R. were removed from the mother’s custody in October and
were eventually placed in the custody of the father’s paternal aunt. The children
both communicated with the court they are happy in their placement.
The children recently learned their “father” L.R. is actually their grandfather.
In June, the mother had a temporary protective order issued against L.R. alleging
domestic violence; on June 24, the trial court found insufficient evidence of an
assault and denied a permanent protective order. On July 17, the juvenile court
issued a protective order barring L.R. from the children’s home and presence. The
1 The court terminated D.R.’s parental rights; he has not appealed.
3
mother then married L.R. in late July. In September, L.R. forced the mother into a
car accident, resulting in a protective order to keep L.R. away from the mother.
The mother claims she is in the process of divorcing L.R.
Starting in August 2019, the mother was ordered to participate in drug
testing. In September, the mother was found in contempt of court for failing to
appear for drug testing.2 A sweat-patch test later that month was positive for
amphetamines and methamphetamine. Later tests came back negative
(December), and then positive again (March 2020). The mother refused to
complete drug tests in May, August, and October 2020, claiming the lab mixed up
tests. She has not completed any substance-abuse treatment throughout the
proceedings and insists she has not used illegal substances.
In November 2019, the mother completed a domestic-violence awareness
class. In December, the mother completed a mental-health evaluation, and the
evaluator recommended regular therapy sessions. The mother engaged in
treatment but, in spring 2020, the mother stopped her in-person therapy and did
not engage in treatment via telehealth. Her reasons for not attending therapy were
health concerns for in-person therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic, her lack of
transportation to get to appointments, and her lack of comfort with any of the
therapists she had met. The mother claims she does not need therapy despite her
mental-health diagnoses and history of traumatic domestic violence but says she
uses daily prayer as her mental-health treatment.
2 The evidence shows the August 2019 drug test was ordered under the mother’s
maiden name, J.F. The mother attempted to test, but the name on her driver’s
license was J.G. and she was not allowed to participate.
4
The mother was not consistent with in-person visitation attendance, often
due to transportation issues. She called and video chatted with the children on a
regular basis. Many of the in-person and video chats were also attended by the
mother’s adult children. The mother was an attentive and capable parent during
visits.
The mother has not cooperated with DHS or the court throughout the
proceedings. She told the court she did not trust DHS, and she displayed a
combative attitude toward DHS workers and service providers, at times sending
high-emotion and accusatory messages to workers. At one point, she filed a notice
with the court threatening legal action against the court system and DHS if her
children were not returned to her care. The mother prolonged the legal
proceedings of this case by filing for multiple continuances, filing pro se
interlocutory appeals and ex parte letters to the court, and changing counsel
several times.
The mother experienced significant housing insecurity during the CINA
case, including evictions from the family home rented under L.R.’s name and from
another rental when it was sold. At times, she would “refuse to tell anybody” where
she lived because she wanted to be left alone, mentioning L.R.’s presence near
her homes. The mother did not have a home at the time of the termination hearing.
The mother was not employed at any point during the CINA proceedings. She
failed to share how she might provide for the children if they were returned to her
care.
5
After a termination hearing on April 1 and 2, 2021, the court terminated the
mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2021). She
appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
“We review proceedings terminating parental rights de novo. We are not
bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact, but we do give them weight,
especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.” In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518,
522–23 (Iowa 2020) (citations omitted).
III. Analysis.
On appeal, the mother claims the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence the children could not be returned to her care, the court
should have granted her an extension under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b), the
court should have applied an exception to termination because the children are in
a relative’s custody and they have close parent-child bonds, and termination is not
in the best interests of the children.
A. Ground for termination. The court terminated the mother’s rights under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f). Pursuant to that provision, the State had to prove
the children were four years of age or older, had been adjudicated CINA, had been
out of the mother’s custody for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, and
there was clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to the
mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(f). The mother only contests the final element—that the children
could not be returned to her care “at the present time” without suffering further
6
adjudicatory harm. Id. § 232.116(1)(f)(4). “[A]t the present time” refers to the time
of the termination hearing. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014).
At the time of the termination hearing, the mother did not have housing for
herself or the children. She had no employment and refused to discuss her plan
of how she would provide for herself and the children. It is unclear where the
mother planned for the children to attend school. She was not in any mental-health
treatment despite emotional outbursts as evidenced in her self-represented filings.
The mother had refused to participate in drug testing or treatment for over a year
after a positive test for methamphetamine. We conclude the children could not
returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.
B. Six-month extension. The court determined it could not grant a six-month
extension under section 232.104(2)(b) because it could not enumerate factors,
conditions, or behavioral changes that would form a basis to find removal would
no longer be necessary. After noting the case had been open for eighteen months,
the court stated, “As of the hearing in April of 2021 on this petition nothing has
changed since removal, and the problems remain unsolved, with little prospect of
them being resolved in the next six months.”
The legislature has established a limited time frame in termination
proceedings for a parent to demonstrate their ability to be a parent, “stem[ming] in
large part from mandates in federal law.” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa
2021) (citation omitted). Once that time frame has passed, “termination
proceedings must be viewed with a sense of urgency.” Id. (citation omitted).
The mother had already been granted a six-month extension in October
2020 to allow her to comply with substance-abuse and mental-health services;
7
unfortunately, she made no progress. The only factor the mother cites as likely to
change in the next six months is a divorce from L.R. While a good step, this would
not address the mother’s refusal to seek substance-abuse and mental-health
treatment, or establish employment or a home. An extension is not warranted in
this case.
C. Best interests. The mother claims it is not in the children’s best interests
to terminate her parental rights.
In considering the best interests of the children, 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). “It is
well-settled law 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.”
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010).
The children are in a safe, stable home with a relative placement who meets
their physical, mental, and emotional needs, ensures they receive therapy as
needed, and nurtures their relationships with family members. The mother is not
in a stable situation and has refused to tell DHS or the court how she plans to
provide for the children’s short- and long-term care. We find termination of the
mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.
D. Exceptions to termination. The mother asserts the court should have
applied two of the permissive exceptions under section 232.116(3) to not terminate
8
her rights: (a) a relative has legal custody of the children and (c) termination would
be detrimental to the children due to the closeness of the parent-child relationships.
The exceptions to termination are permissive, not mandatory. In re A.S.,
906 N.W.2d 467, 475 (Iowa 2018). “[O]nce the State has proven a ground for
termination, the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an
exception to termination.” Id. at 476.
The willingness of a relative to take custody of the children does not
countermand a determination that termination of a parent’s rights is in the
children’s best interests. See id. at 475. Nor is this an instance where a
guardianship would be an appropriate alternative. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d
305, 315 (Iowa 2021) (noting a possible example where guardianship might be
appropriate but a long-term guardianship would deny the parent of additional
services and the parent could challenge the guardianship later). Nothing in the
record indicates the paternal aunt would agree to a guardianship. Rather, the
record reflects she is prepared to adopt the children, which would provide them
with permanency. The mother has not carried her burden to establish the
applicability of this exception.
It is clear from the record the mother has a close bond with her children.
However, our supreme court has observed, “Yet the existence of a bond is not
enough.” A.B., 956 N.W.2d at 169. The parent has to prove the bond is so strong
that it clearly outweighs the child’s need for permanency. W.M., 957 N.W.2d at
315. The juvenile court found termination “would be less detrimental than the harm
that would be caused by continuing the parent-child relationships.” The mother
9
has not proved the parent-child bond here is so strong as to clearly outweigh the
children’s need for permanency. See id.
We conclude termination is in the children’s best interests and affirm.
AFFIRMED.