IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1277
Filed October 12, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF D.B.,
Minor child,
K.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan F. Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Kristin L. Denniger, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Carrie K. Bryner, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. 1
Because of the mother’s continued drug use, her continued relationship with the
abusive father, and the need for the child to be in a safe, stable environment, we
affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
D.B., born September 2014, first came to the attention of the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) in November 2014, upon allegations the
mother and father were using methamphetamine and the father was assaulting
the mother. Services were offered but refused. Nearly one year later, on
September 3, 2015, the district court ordered D.B.’s removal from the home upon
findings similar to the prior year’s allegations—that is, the use and manufacture
of methamphetamine within the home, as well as the father assaulting the
mother. Drug testing revealed D.B. had been exposed to methamphetamine. He
was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance shortly thereafter upon the
stipulation of the mother. Reunification services were offered to the mother,
which included substance abuse testing, evaluations, and treatment options. Her
compliance was inconsistent, prompting the State to seek termination of the
mother’s parental rights. After a hearing on the petition, the district court ordered
the termination of the mother’s parental rights on July 11, 2016. The mother
appeals.
1
The father’s appeal of the termination of his parental rights was dismissed by our
supreme court as untimely.
3
II. Standard of Review.
We review termination of parental rights proceedings de novo, giving
weight to, but not being bound by, the district court’s fact finding. In re A.M., 843
N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014).
III. Statutory Grounds for Termination.
The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) (2015). That code section requires the State to prove by
clear and convincing evidence,
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child
cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
in section 232.102 at the present time.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). The mother only contests the findings as to the
fourth element, which requires the State establish “[t]he child cannot be protected
from some harm which would justify the adjudication of the child as a child in
need of assistance.” See Iowa Code § 232.102(5)(a)(2).
The mother testified her drug of choice was methamphetamine, having
used it off and on since she was fourteen years old. While the mother delayed
participating in the reunification services for several months after the child was
removed, she testified that she had been drug free for five months—from
February to July 2016. The district court found her claim of being drug free
lacked credibility as the mother tested positive for methamphetamine, marijuana,
4
and opiates in both April and May. She was also arrested in May for driving
while barred. In addition, the mother was found to have continued her
relationship with the abusive father, after declaring numerous times he would no
longer be a part of her life.2 As perceived by DHS and found by the court, the
mother’s ongoing substance abuse and her violent relationship with the father
would expose the child to an adjudicatory harm if returned to the mother’s care at
the present time. As an alternative, the mother seeks additional time to prove
she can safely and adequately parent D.B. Under Iowa Code section
232.104(2)(b), a court may authorize a six-month extension of time if it
determines “the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer
exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” The district court found she
has not made “real, sustained progress in addressing the issues which place
[D.B.] at imminent risk of harm if in [her] care.” We agree and affirm the grounds
for termination, as well as the denial of additional time to work towards
reunification. A child should not be asked to continuously wait for a stable
biological parent, particularly when the child is of a tender age. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010).
IV. Best Interests and the Parent-Child Bond.3
Next, the mother asserts termination is not in D.B.’s best interests
because she has a bond with the child. We look to whether the child “will be
disadvantaged by termination, and whether the disadvantage overcomes [the
2
The mother admitted her continued relationship with the father, and she was pregnant
at the termination hearing, anticipating giving birth to twins in November 2016.
3
The mother raises these separate statutory issues in one argument. See Iowa Code §
232.116(2), (3).
5
parent’s] inability to provide for [the child’s] developing needs.” Id. at 709. Not
long after the child was removed from the home, DHS placed D.B. with his
maternal aunt—the mother’s sister. With this placement, the sister was
authorized to supervise the visits, which reportedly went well. Although the child
has a bond with his mother, he also has a strong bond with his aunt, who is
willing to provide a permanent home for the child through adoption.
It is clear from all the testimony, reports, and exhibits that the aunt is able
to provide D.B. with the safe and stable environment the mother has yet to
create, let alone sustain for any period of time. “In considering whether to
terminate the rights of a parent under this section, the court shall 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); In re J.E., 723
N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating that a
child’s safety and the child’s need for a permanent home are the “defining
elements” in determining a child’s best interests). We agree termination was in
the child’s best interests and there were no impediments to terminations.
AFFIRMED.