IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0025
Filed April 5, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., S.S., and T.S.,
Minor children,
J.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle,
District Associate Judge.
Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights pursuant to
Iowa Code chapter 232 (2016). AFFIRMED.
Derek J. Johnson of Johnson and Bonzer, P.L.C., Fort Dodge, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen Witte Kraemer,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Neven J. Conrad of Baker, Johnsen, Sandblom & Lemmenes, Humboldt,
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Jennifer, the mother, appeals from an order terminating her parental rights
in her three children, A.H, born in 2009, T.S., born in 2011, and S.S., born in
2014. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2016). On appeal, the mother
contends the juvenile court should have deferred permanency for an additional
six months to allow her more time to reunify with the children. She also contends
the termination of her parental rights was not in the best interests of the children.
Finally, she argues the district court erred in admitting into evidence certain
mental health reports.
“We review proceedings terminating parental rights de novo.” In re A.M.,
843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014) (citing In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa
2010)). The statutory framework governing termination proceedings is well
established. Pursuant to section 232.116(1), the State must prove a statutory
ground authorizing the termination of a parent's rights. See In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). Section 232.116(1) sets forth the harms the
legislature has determined to be of sufficient concern to justify the breakup of the
family unit. Second, pursuant to section 232.116(2), the State must prove
termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. See id. Third, if
the State has proved both the existence of statutory harm and termination of a
parent’s rights is in the best interests of the child, the juvenile court must consider
whether any countervailing considerations set forth in section 232.116(3) should
nonetheless preclude termination of parental rights. See id. These
countervailing considerations are permissive, not mandatory. See A.M., 843
3
N.W.2d at 113. “The court has discretion, based on the unique circumstances of
each case and the best interests of the child, whether to apply the factors in this
section to save the parent-child relationship.” In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 475
(Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (citing In re C.L.H., 500 N.W.2d 449, 454 (Iowa Ct. App.
1993).
The State has the burden to prove its case by clear and convincing
evidence. “Clear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of the
evidence and less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re L.G., 532
N.W.2d 478, 481 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citing King v. King, 291 N.W.2d 22, 24
(Iowa 1980)). “It is the highest evidentiary burden in civil cases. It means there
must be no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of a particular
conclusion drawn from the evidence.” In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2016). This significant burden is imposed on the State to minimize the risk
of an erroneous deprivation of the parent’s fundamental liberty interest in raising
his or her child. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759 (1982). We
therefore cannot rubber stamp what has come before; it is our task to ensure the
State has come forth with the quantum and quality of evidence necessary to
prove each of the elements of its case. See id. at 769.
The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (hereinafter “IDHS”) in October 2015 after the two older children were
found wandering outside alone at night. This was the fourth time the children
were returned to the home by law enforcement. At the time of the incident,
Jennifer was married to and living with Jeremy, the father of the two younger
children. IDHS’s investigation raised concerns regarding the ability of the mother
4
and the father to provide for the basic needs of the children, including proper
feeding and supervision. IDHS also had concerns regarding domestic violence in
the home. IDHS removed the children from the home. Subsequent to removal,
based on additional information obtained from A.H., a child protective
assessment was founded against Jeremy for sexual abuse, lascivious acts with a
child. A.H. was the victim of Jeremy’s conduct.
The mother and the children have mental-health conditions. Jennifer has
an intellectual disability and untreated mental-health conditions. She has an IQ
of 62. She was diagnosed with anxiety and depressive disorder. At the initiation
of this case, Jennifer engaged in treatment for her mental-health conditions. She
was discharged unsuccessfully, however, for the failure to attend her sessions.
T.S. was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and
developmental speech delay. He is on the autism spectrum. He engages in
violent acts of harm to self and others. A.H. was diagnosed with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, disinhibited social
engagement disorder, and unspecified intellectual disability. A.H. engages in
inappropriate conduct, including aggression and sexualized behavior, such as
public masturbation. S.S. is developmentally delayed and is being evaluated for
autism.
Jennifer does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
statutory grounds authorizing the termination of her parental rights. She does
contend, however, the juvenile court should have deferred permanency for an
additional six months to afford her more time to seek reunification with her
children. To defer permanency for six months, the juvenile court was required to
5
“enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes
which comprise the basis for the determination that the need for removal of the
child[ren] from the child[ren]’s home will no longer exist at the end of the
additional six-month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).
The juvenile court denied the requested extension for the following
reasons:
Here, Jennifer’s past conduct demonstrates that it is unlikely the
grounds for removal will no longer exist in six months. Before their
removal, Jennifer was not fully engaged in the care and supervision
of the children. Jennifer has not gained any greater insight into the
care and supervision of her children at this time, despite extensive
services. She has not attended appointments with doctors or
participated in the children’s mental health therapy and medication
management. She has attended some of the AEA and speech
appointments only because they are held jointly with Early Head
Start sessions. Jennifer does not have any idea who her children’s
medical providers, service providers and mental health providers
are. The children have mental health and behavioral issues that
need consistency. [A.H.] exhibits sexual behaviors, and [T.S.]
bangs his head and bites when upset. Jennifer has failed to show
any interest in working with the doctors and other providers in
meeting the needs of her children.
The request for additional time to seek reunification is denied.
There is nothing in the extended history of this case that allows the
Court to conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that real
change will occur that will eliminate the need for removal over the
next six months.
We adopt the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions as if our own. There is no
evidence supporting the conclusion that the “need for removal of the child[ren]
from the child[ren]’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-
month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).
Having concluded there was no reason to defer permanency for an
additional six months, we must still determine whether the termination of
6
Jennifer’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. See P.L., 778 N.W.2d
at 41. “We consider what the future holds for the child[ren] if returned to [their]
parents.” In re R.M., 431 N.W.2d 196, 199 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (citing In re
Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981)).
We conclude termination of Jennifer’s parental rights is in the best
interests of the children. As stated above, Jennifer has demonstrated over time
an inability to safely care for the children. This is evidenced by the children
repeatedly wandering away from the home, sexual abuse of A.H., and the
inability to supervise the children during visitation. This is further evidenced by
Jennifer’s admitted inability to obtain safe and appropriate housing for herself
and the children. Finally, this is evidenced by Jennifer’s failure to involve herself
in the children’s medical and mental-health treatment. Jennifer’s failure to
understand the nature of the children’s unique developmental and mental-health
needs militates strongly in favor of terminating her parental rights. The children
are bonded with their respective caregivers, and the caregivers wish to adopt the
children. The children are doing better with their respective caregivers. Their
negative behaviors are lessening. This also militates in favor of terminating
parental rights. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b) (stating it is a relevant
consideration “whether the foster family is able and willing to permanently
integrate the child into the foster family”).
While the mother in this case clearly loves her children, “[i]t 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.” P.L.,
7
778 N.W.2d at 41 (citing Dameron, 306 N.W.2d at 747). “It is simply not in the
best interests of children to continue to keep them in temporary foster homes
while the natural parents get their lives together.” A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 778
(quoting In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997)).
We lastly address Jennifer’s contention the juvenile court erred in
admitting into evidence certain mental health reports. Specifically, Jennifer
contends the juvenile court should not have considered any mental-health
reports regarding the children. She contends the State failed to lay proper
foundation for the reports. There was no error. See Iowa Code § 232.96(6)
(allowing the admission of “[a] report, study, record, or other writing or an
audiotape . . . recording made by [DHS], a juvenile court officer, a peace officer
or a hospital . . . notwithstanding any objection to hearsay statements contained
[with]in,” if it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial); In re K.F., 437 N.W.2d 559,
563 (Iowa 1989) (stating “evidence properly admissible in an adjudication
proceeding should be accorded the same standard of admissibility in a
subsequent termination hearing”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order terminating Jennifer’s
parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of A.H., S.S., and T.S., Minor Children, J.S., Mother
Combined Opinion