IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0505
Filed June 7, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., B.G., and I.G.,
Minor Children,
A.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M.
Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.
The mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to her three children. AFFIRMED.
Sara E. Benson of Benson Law, P.C., Council Bluffs, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen Witte Kraemer,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Roberta J. Megel of State Public Defender Office, Council Bluffs, guardian
ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
The mother1 appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to her three children, A.G. (born in 2013), B.G. (born in 2011), and I.G.
(born in 2010).2 The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f), (i), and (l) (2016). She challenges each of
the statutory grounds and maintains termination was not in the best interests of
the children.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) first became involved
with this family in April 2014 based on reports from I.G. that her father had hit her
in the face, giving her a bloody nose, and had touched her “coochie.”
Additionally, the mother reported an extensive history of domestic violence
between her and the children’s father, with the father as the perpetrator. At the
time DHS began its involvement, the mother and the children were living at the
home of the maternal grandparents.
Shortly thereafter, in May, the mother left the children in the care of
relatives and left town in order to resume her relationship with the father. The
children were then officially removed from the parents’ care by court order.
The parents went a number of months without seeing the children or
beginning services. The department had concerns regarding the mother’s
1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated; he does not appeal.
2
Pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.201(1)(e)(2), the appellant “shall
attach to the petition on appeal a copy of” the petition for termination of parental rights
and the order terminating parental rights. We note that the mother has failed to do so
here.
3
mental health, as she had a longstanding diagnosis of bipolar schizophrenia
disorder, and the possibility of substance abuse.
In August 2014, the parents stipulated to adjudicating all three children in
need of assistance (CINA). The children were then moved from the maternal
relatives’ home to a foster home closer to where the mother and father had
moved, but the parents continued to refuse services for a period of time.
By June 2015, things were going well enough for the family that DHS
initiated a trial home visit, placing the children in the care of the parents with DHS
supervision. It was ordered the family continue participating in family safety, risk,
and permanency (FSRP) services and the mother participate in mental-health
services as recommended to deal with her post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), anxiety, and bipolar schizophrenia. DHS had ongoing concerns
regarding the cleanliness and safety of the home and the general instability in the
family’s housing situation, but the parents showed progress in their parenting
skills and their ability to provide for the basic needs of the children.
The children were again removed from the care of their parents in
February 2016, after the children’s daycare provider reported the mother had
appeared to be intoxicated when she drove the children to daycare that morning.
The children and mother had poor hygiene, and the daycare provider noted the
youngest child was not in a car seat when the family arrived. When the
caseworker received the report and went to the family’s last known address, she
was told the family no longer lived there. She obtained an updated address and
showed up for an unannounced visit, but the father denied her entry into the
4
home. The mother submitted to a drug screen the next day and tested positive
for marijuana.
The mother completed a second mental-health and substance-abuse
evaluation in April 2016. The professional completing the evaluation opined:
[The mother] needs to be receiving therapy for her mental health
issues and agreed to return to see this therapist. However, on her
second visit she was not invested in the process and doodled
throughout most of the session. Currently her life is chaotic and she
seems ill prepared to engage in efforts to stabilize her situation. It
appears she uses substances, specifically cannabis and alcohol, to
cope with her symptoms of PTSD. She does have considerable
mental health issues related to being a victim of traumatic
experiences and may not have had adequate attachment to her own
biological mother when she was born and until her mother left the
family. She continues to need a larger support system. She would
benefit from earning her GED.
The mother and father separated in June 2016.
After the parents’ separation, the mother exhibited increased strain; she
was unable to manage the children’s negative behaviors during visits and she
had outbursts at the children, including an instance when she repeatedly told
I.G., “I don’t like you either.” Additionally, it became difficult for DHS to keep
track of where the mother was living, and she was not always reachable by
telephone. Without the father to drive her, the mother had new transportation
issues. She also continued to be largely unemployed even though she no longer
had the father’s income as support. At one point, the mother began attending
mental health services, but she quit after a of couple sessions.
In August 2016, the mother indicated that she wanted the children to be
placed with the maternal grandparents; the children had stayed with the
grandparents before—at the outset of the case—and the grandparents had since
5
become licensed foster parents. The placement was approximately three-and-
one-half hours away from the mother’s residence, and she was told by DHS they
could not help with transportation for visits, but the mother still indicated she
wanted the children’s placement to be changed. The grandparents agreed to
supervise visits between the mother and children.
The mother had one visit with the children at the grandparents’ home in
early September 2016. She was supposed to have a second visit on September
25, but while she and her new boyfriend were on their way to the grandparents’
home, they were arrested. The mother was charged with possession of a
controlled substance (marijuana), possession of drug paraphernalia, and
possession of prescription drugs. The boyfriend was charged with a number of
drug charges and for having a machete in the vehicle. After the grandparents
learned of the arrest, they refused to supervise any future visits.
The termination hearing took place on February 6, 2017. The mother had
not seen the children in person since the visit in early September. DHS and the
mother had set up a schedule where the mother was supposed to call the
children three nights a week, starting November 15. In the almost four months
the schedule had been in place, the mother had called eleven times. The mother
continued to be unemployed. She testified she intended to apply for Social
Security Disability benefits based on her bipolar schizophrenia diagnosis and she
was getting the application soon. She did not have an answer why she had not
applied for the benefits before, since she had been diagnosed more than seven
years earlier. The mother did not help support the children financially; she
testified she had sent A.G. a big balloon for her birthday and had sent “a
6
backpack full of books” and two dolls she was not sure they got. The mother
claimed she had last smoked marijuana in early January 2017, but she had two
positive drug tests after that date. Additionally, she testified she had not quit
before because, “I don’t have my kids and that’s the only thing that seems to help
me cope. And once I have my kids, I’ll be able to quit. I’ll have my one thing that
keeps me from doing it.” According to the social worker’s report to the court, the
mother had “limited to no contact with the assigned FSRP provider since the last
court hearing” in August 2016.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f), (i), and (l). The mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re P.L.,
778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).
III. Discussion.
“The first step in our analysis is to determine if a ground for termination
exists under section 232.116(1).” Id. We may affirm on any ground we find
supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Id. Here, we consider
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), which allows the court to terminate if:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents
have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the
child during the previous six consecutive months and have made
no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being
given the opportunity to do so. For the purposes of this
subparagraph, “significant and meaningful contact” includes but is
not limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties
7
encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty,
in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the
child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in
the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain
communication with the child, and requires that the parents
establish and maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.
The mother does not contest that the children have been adjudicated CINA and
have been out of her care for at least six consecutive months. Rather, she
maintains she had maintained significant and meaningful contact and made
reasonable efforts to resume care “to the best of her ability.”
We do not believe one visit and eleven phone calls constitute “significant
and meaningful contact.” The mother made less than one call per week to speak
to her children, who were ages six, five, and three. The grandmother reported
“the children appear disengaged and there is little to no dialogue” during the
calls. The limited number of calls made by the mother were, as the social worker
described, “sporadic[] and not necessarily at the agreed upon dates or times.”
Moreover, the grandmother, who supervised the phone calls, testified the mother
was not always appropriate, sometimes making ill-advised promises to the
children.
In spite of the mother’s contention otherwise, we cannot find she has
made reasonable efforts to resume care of the children. The mother has not
found employment. A social worker from a local public health agency testified on
the mother’s behalf that the mother was applying to jobs and intended to pursue
a high-school-equivalent degree, but the mother testified her plan was to apply
for SSI benefits. There is no indication the mother is able to provide for the
children or that she has sought the means to be able to do so. The mother had
8
not provided financial support for the children while they have been placed with
the grandparents. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) (defining the duties of parents
to include “financial obligations”). Additionally, she lacks stable housing3 and has
continued to smoke marijuana. The mother testified repeatedly that she does not
believe marijuana is a drug and she “d[id]n’t see why [her] drug use is actually
being brought up.” Even if the mother does not believe the use of marijuana
affects her ability to parent, it was made clear to her through case plans and
court orders that her continued use was a barrier to reunification. See id.
(defining the duties of parents to include “a genuine effort to complete the
responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan”). The mother also did
not have a driver’s license and often struggled to meet her own transportation
needs. Finally, we acknowledge the mother testified she had begun to see both
a psychiatrist and a therapist to work on her mental-health and substance-abuse
needs in January 2017, but we cannot say such few appointments are a
“reasonable effort” after nearly three years of court orders to engage in such
services.
There is clear and convincing evidence to terminate the mother’s parental
rights to all three children pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e).
The mother also maintains termination is not in the children’s best
interests. We disagree. The grandparents have been able to provide stability to
the children that they previously lacked. For example, in the school year before
3
The mother testified her current housing was “finally” stable, but we note that she had
been living in the home less than two months and was not on the lease. The mother had
lived in five different homes between August 2015 and the time of the termination
hearing in early February 2017.
9
the children were placed with their maternal grandparents, I.G. changed schools
four or five times and there was concern she would have to repeat kindergarten
due to being behind; I.G attended only one school while living with the
grandparents. Additionally, the children are bonded with their grandparents. The
children lived with the grandparents for a period when the case began in April
2014, and they had been residing with them again for approximately six months
at the time of the termination hearing. The children had begun to refer to the
grandparents by parental names and would go to them for comfort. The
grandparents expressed that they would be willing to adopt all of the children,
noting that the siblings are “really bonded to each other.”
Because the statutory grounds for termination have been met and
termination is in the children’s best interests, we affirm.4
AFFIRMED.
4
We do not consider whether a permissive factor weighing against termination exists, as
the mother did not raise the issue. See P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 40 (stating the court need
not discuss a step because the parent did not dispute it).