IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0134
Filed April 5, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF E.H.,
Minor child,
M.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J.
Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Gina L. Kramer of Reynolds & Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kathryn A. Duccini of Duccini Law Offices, Dubuque, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in
2013. She does not challenge the grounds for termination. She contends (1) the
juvenile court should have granted her an extension of time to work towards
reunification and (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests.
I. Extension of Time
A court may decline to terminate parental rights and may continue a
placement for an additional six months in the expectation that the need for the
child’s removal will no longer exist at the end of the extension period. See Iowa
Code §§ 232.104(2)(b), 232.117(5) (2016). The juvenile court refused to grant
the mother’s request for this relief. On our de novo review, we agree with the
court’s decision.
The department of human services became involved with the family in
March 2016, after the child tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine.
The department initiated safety services. The mother briefly participated in those
services but declined to undergo drug testing.
In time, the mother was arrested and jailed on various charges. The child,
who had lived with his great-grandparents since birth, remained in their home.
The State filed a child-in-need-of-assistance petition. The juvenile court
entered an adjudicatory order placing custody of the child with the department for
continued relative placement. The court afforded the mother visits with the child
in the department’s discretion.
The mother was released from jail at the end of May 2016. In the ensuing
two months, she tested negative for drugs, attended group and individual therapy
3
sessions, obtained employment, and participated in visits, which were supervised
by a service provider or by the great-grandparents. In light of her progress, the
department recommended a thirty-day trial home placement and the mother
moved into the great-grandparents’ home.
The mother’s progress was short-lived; she admitted to reconnecting with
drug-using friends and relapsing on methamphetamine. The department gave
her a second chance, allowing her to remain in the great-grandparents’ home as
long as she “move[d] forward with sobriety.” Within two weeks, she tested
positive and confirmed that she had used methamphetamine multiple times since
her initial relapse.
The mother was informed she could no longer live in the great-
grandparents’ home. She moved out and landed in jail a second time. On her
release, she entered a shelter, violated curfew rules, and was discharged from
the facility.
The mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine. At the
termination hearing, she admitted she had been in jail “[o]ff and on” for the
previous seven months and was presently in jail again. Her pending criminal
charges had yet to be finally resolved, she had not seen her child for more than a
month, and she conceded the child could not be returned to her care at that time.
On this record, we conclude the juvenile court appropriately denied the
mother’s request for a ninety-day extension of time to work towards reunification.
II. Parent-Child Bond
The court may decline to terminate parental rights based on the parent-
child bond. See id. § 232.116(3)(c). The juvenile court concluded “there was no
4
clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the
child due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship to such an extent that
termination should be avoided.” On our de novo review, we agree with this
assessment.
There is no question mother and child shared a bond. But there is also no
question the child’s safety would have been compromised had he been returned
to her care. The mother appeared to appreciate this hard truth in conceding
immediate reunification was not possible. Termination of her parental rights to
the child was appropriate.
AFFIRMED.