IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1265
Filed September 25, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF C.H.,
Minor Child,
K.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Shippee, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Timothy J. Tupper of Tupper Law Firm, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anna T. Stoeffler (until withdrawal)
and Mary A. Trick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Angela M. Fritz-Reyes, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to C.H.1 We
affirm.
“We review proceedings terminating parental rights de novo.” In re A.M.,
843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). “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.” Id. (quoting In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010)).
C.H.’s older half-sibling, G.H., was born in 2015 with methamphetamine in
his system, and the mother and G.H. were involved in child-in-need-of assistance
(CINA) proceedings. G.H. is placed in the care of the maternal grandmother under
a guardianship.
C.H. came to the attention of the department of human services (DHS) at
birth in December 2016 due to the mother’s long history of illegal drug use. The
mother is able to maintain her sobriety while in a structured environment for a few
months. The mother had entered a residential substance-abuse treatment
program in November 2016. C.H. did not have any illegal substances in his system
at birth but the mother admitted that she used methamphetamine early in her
pregnancy. The mother relapsed in August 2017 but self-reported and reengaged
in treatment. However, she struggled with maintaining sobriety.
C.H. was removed from his mother’s custody in February 2018 and was
adjudicated a CINA in April. The mother relapsed in the summer of 2018 and did
not engage in substance-abuse or mental-health treatment after November 2018.
1
The father’s rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
3
In a November 16, 2018 report to the court, DHS social worker Brandi
Durant stated:
[K.H.] has had DHS services in her life since February 2015. She
has attended treatment multiple times, and has completed substance
abuse treatment successfully in the past. [K.H.] knows what her
recovery plan is, and what she needs to do to become and remain
clean and sober. She has been unable to do so for more than a few
months at a time for the last [three and one-half] years. It is clear her
addiction is so great she is not able to live in recovery and provide a
safe and stable home for her child. [K.H.] is also pregnant.
On November 19, the child was placed in the temporary custody of S.M., a
suitable other, who has expressed a willingness to be a long-term care option.
The mother participated in a November 20 substance-abuse evaluation,
which resulted in diagnoses of severe levels of use of methamphetamine, alcohol,
and marijuana and severe disorders of heroin and cocaine use in sustained
remission. Inpatient treatment was recommended for the mother. She did not
participate in substance-abuse treatment and was not consistent in participating in
DHS services or visiting the child.
In a February 2019 permanency hearing, the court found the mother
continues to struggle with substance abuse. She has not engaged
in treatment since November, 2018. She admitted that she had used
illegal substances as recently as February 3, 2019. She has not
cooperated with requests for drug testing. As recently as February
8, 2019[,] Brandi Durant spoke with the mother about going to
Country Oaks for treatment and the mother refused. The mother is
currently pregnant and is unemployed. [DHS] is unaware of her
address. She has not had any visits with the child since at least
November.
The court ordered DHS to file a termination-of-parental-rights petition.
The mother continued to use illegal substances while she was pregnant with
her third child.
4
At the termination-of-parental-rights hearing on July 9, 2019, the mother
testified she had recently given birth and the baby tested positive for marijuana at
birth. DHS was allowing the baby to remain in the care of the baby’s father, and
the mother was able to be with the baby under the father’s supervision.2 She
stated she had entered treatment the day before the hearing and asked the court
to grant her an extension to seek reunification with C.H.
The juvenile court terminated her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l)3 (2019), concluding termination of parental rights
and adoption were in the child’s best interests.
On appeal, the mother challenges the juvenile court’s conclusions that
termination was proper pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h).4
However, the mother does not dispute the court’s ruling that termination was
supported under section 232.116(1)(l). See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa
2010) (stating we do not have to address whether grounds for termination exist
where parent does not challenge a ground on which the court relies). We therefore
affirm on that ground. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012) (“When
2
The baby and C.H. have different fathers.
3
Pursuant to section 232.116(1)(l), the court may terminate parental rights if:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance . . .
and custody has been transferred from the child’s parents for placement
....
(2) The parent has a severe substance-related disorder and
presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s
prognosis indicates that the child will not be able to be returned to the
custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time considering the
child’s age and need for a permanent home.
4
The mother also argues termination was not proper under section 232.116(1)(b) and (d).
However, paragraphs “b” and “d” were relevant only to the court’s findings with respect to
the father’s parental rights.
5
the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground,
we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find supported by the
record.”).
Nor does the mother challenge the juvenile court’s finding that termination
of her parental rights is in the child’s best interests. We adopt the juvenile court’s
findings:
[K.H.] has a severe substance abuse related disorder and
presents a danger to herself and others as evidenced by her
ingestion of drugs while pregnant. Her prognosis indicates the child
could not be returned to her custody within a reasonable period of
time. [K.H.] has attended substance abuse treatment programs at
the Area Substance Abuse Counsel (ASAC), Center for Alcohol and
Drug Services (CADS), Heart of Iowa, High Tower and Rosecrance
New Life. She has attended programming at Heart of Iowa on at
least seven occasions. [K.H.] also participated in Family Wellness
Court but discharged due to lack of compliance. The mother recently
gave birth and that child was born with marijuana in his system.
Exhibit 47 shows that the mother had an evaluation at Rosecrance
New Life on June 24, 2019[,] and they recommended outpatient
services. It was the third evaluation she had received since
November, 2018. An evaluation completed at Rosecrance New Life
on November 20, 2018[,] had recommended inpatient treatment.
The mother chose not to attend Heart of Iowa. An evaluation
completed at Rosecrance New Life on February 15, 2019[,] also
recommended inpatient treatment. The mother again turned down
inpatient treatment. The mother testified that she began treatment
on July 8, 2019, the day before the termination hearing. It is positive
that [she] recognizes her need for treatment, but [C.H.] should not
have to keep waiting for her to become a clean, sober caretaker.
The following additional facts have been shown to exist
currently. The child has been in a continuous out of home placement
for over six months. The child can’t be safely returned to the home
of either parent now or in the near future.
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of C.H., Minor Child
Combined Opinion