IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0088
Filed March 22, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF K.G.,
Minor child,
V.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Nancy A.S. Trotter, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary K. Wickman, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Erin M. Hardisty of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
Finding the State carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence,
we affirm.1
The child, K.G., born 2015, came to the attention of the Iowa Department
of Human Services (DHS) after testing positive for oxycodone at birth. The
mother admitted to using methamphetamine and oxycodone during the
pregnancy. K.G. was removed in April 2015 and placed in foster care. In May,
K.G. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance.
After a termination hearing held over multiple days, the district court
terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)
(2016). The mother appeals, asserting the State failed to establish the grounds
for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination was not in the best
interests of the child, and exceptions to termination are present.
We review the termination of parental rights de novo, giving weight to the
factual findings of the district court while not being bound by them. In re A.M.,
843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014).
The record establishes the mother has failed to abstain from the use of
illegal substances and the child cannot be safely returned to her care without the
risk of adjudicatory harm. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4). Initially, the
mother was open to services offered by DHS, though she tested positive for
illegal substances while receiving substance-abuse treatment in the months
1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated, but after initially appealing, he later
dismissed his appeal.
3
following removal. In October 2015, the mother became resistant to services
after admitting to taking Percocet without a prescription. Throughout late 2015
and early 2016, the mother missed numerous drug screens and scheduled
substance-abuse evaluations. The mother began sporadically missing visitation
appointments, missed medical appointments for the child, and became
inconsistent in her contact with DHS and the child’s foster parents. She also lost
her job and was not maintaining a permanent home. In September 2016, the
mother again tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. Based
on the record before us, we agree with the district court’s conclusion the State
proved by clear and convincing evidence the children could not be safely
returned to the mother. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4).
The mother also claims termination was not in the best interests of the
child under Iowa Code section 232.116(2). In determining termination was in the
best interests of the child, the district court stated: “[The child] is approximately
20 months old. The Child Welfare case has been open his entire life. It needs to
end. He needs certainty and permanency and safety and stability that cannot be
provided by his biological parents.” “[W]e 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). We agree it was
in the child’s best interest to terminate the mother’s parental rights and nothing
militated against termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2), (3).
We agree the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the mother’s
parental rights should be terminated under section 232.116(1)(h). We also agree
4
with the district court that termination is in the child’s best interests. We therefore
affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of K.G., Minor Child, V.G., Mother
Combined Opinion