IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0259
Filed April 19, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF R.D., I.D., and A.D.,
Minor children,
C.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Martha L. Cox, Bettendorf, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kristi A. Traynor, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Joshua T. Cobie of Brubaker, Flynn & Darland, P.C., Davenport, guardian
ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
The mother, C.R., started using illegal substances when she was twelve
years old, and she has been abusing drugs and alcohol on and off since. She
has six children, three of which are the subject of this appeal—R.D., born in
2008; I.D., born in 2009; and A.D., born in 2010. The mother’s other three
children have no relationship with R.D., I.D., and A.D.; the two oldest children live
with their maternal grandparents in Virginia, and the youngest child was placed in
foster care.
J.D. is the father of R.D., I.D., and A.D.1 He has had ongoing custody and
care of the children since approximately 2012, and he supervised visits between
the mother and the children in his home. He has a history of alcohol abuse, but
he had been sober for some time until December 2014, after it was reported one
of the children had been sexually abused by a babysitter.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (Department) became formally
involved with the family in February 2015. At that time, the mother was
participating in a substance abuse treatment program and living at the provider’s
residential facility. It was anticipated she would be discharged in August 2015;
however, she left the facility in May 2015 before completing the program. The
mother did not maintain contact with the Department’s caseworker thereafter,
and the mother’s whereabouts were unknown for most of the case. The mother
had not seen the children since approximately February 2015, except for one
instance around Christmas 2015 when she showed up at a gas station where the
1
The father’s parental rights are not at issue in this appeal.
3
father and children were and “made all sorts of false promises to the children”
that “resulted in negative behaviors by all of the children.”
Services were offered to the family, but the mother was not involved with
any reunification efforts. In September 2016, the State filed petitions for
termination of the mother’s parental rights to the three children. At the time of the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing in January 2017, the mother was in jail,
having been placed there December 1, 2016. The Department stated the mother
had no contact with the children since December 2015, but the mother testified
she saw the children in April 2016 and gave them Easter baskets. The mother
testified that she was again participating in treatment through the jail and had
been sober since December 2, 2016. She testified she would be successful this
time because she had a plan, and she requested additional time for reunification
since reunification efforts with the father were still ongoing. The juvenile court
subsequently entered its order terminating the mother’s parental rights.
The mother now appeals. She does not challenge the grounds for
termination found by the juvenile court or assert the exceptions to termination
apply here. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (stating we do not
have to discuss any step of the three-step analysis the juvenile court must decide
in the process of terminating a parent’s parental rights if the step was not
challenged by the parent on appeal). Rather, she argues termination of her
parental rights was not in the children’s best interests pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.116(2) (2016). Specifically, she contends the father’s ongoing issues
and the children’s removal from his care means the children’s permanent
placement has yet to be determined, and therefore termination of her parental
4
rights was not in the children’s best interests. She also argues the children
should not be separated from their two older siblings who live in Virginia. Upon
our de novo review, see In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014), we agree
with the juvenile court that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the
children’s best interests.
Section 232.116(2) sets forth the framework for determining whether
termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests. See P.L., 778 N.W.2d
at 37. “The primary considerations are ‘the child’s safety,’ ‘the best placement for
furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child,’ and ‘the physical,
mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.’” Id. (citation omitted).
With these considerations in mind, the juvenile court concluded:
Termination of parental rights and adoption provides a full
time legal committed parent to these children. It is unknown
whether their father will meet this need for the children. . . . He is
the only parent the children have known for the past year and a
half. His relationship with them may be irreparably harmed by his
recent failure. However, his recent failure has little bearing on
whether or not [the mother’s] parental rights should be terminated.
It remains in their best interest to be as far away from her
rollercoaster and dangerous lifestyle as possible.
The history of this case clearly demonstrates that reasonable
efforts were undertaken to prevent or eliminate the need for
removal of the children from the parental home, that reasonable
efforts were offered to reunify the children with their mother but the
call to her went unanswered for over a year. In fact the only time
she has expressed an interest in parenting the children is when she
is incarcerated; when released she disappears. Her testimony and
intentions today do not fulfill [the] children’s need for a full time
committed parent now. Failure to terminate parental rights would
be contrary to the welfare of the children as the termination of
parental rights is the only reasonable means to establish
permanency for [the children] in the near future.
We agree with the juvenile court’s conclusions.
5
Additionally, we note the children have no relationship with their older
siblings, who are not in the mother’s care but rather their grandparent’s care in
Virginia. This does not negate the mother’s failure to parent the children or have
any involvement in their lives. The mother has chosen substances and alcohol
over a relationship with her children time and time again. While the status of the
children’s permanency with regard to the father may remain at issue, the mother
has had adequate time to show she wants and can provide a permanent home
for the children and has failed. Upon our de novo review, we agree with the
juvenile court that the State established termination of the mother’s parental
rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the order
terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.