IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0946
Filed September 13, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.,
Minor Child,
A.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental
rights. AFFIRMED.
Karmen R. Anderson of The Law Office of Karmen Anderson, Des
Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
ConGarry D. Williams of Juvenile Public Defender Office, Des Moines,
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental
rights. We find it would not be in the child’s best interests to give the mother
additional time to work toward reunification with the child. We affirm the juvenile
court’s decision terminating the mother’s parental rights.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
A.M. is the mother of J.L., who was born in 2015. The mother has a long
history of mental-health problems and substance abuse. Her parental rights to
two older children were previously terminated. J.L. tested positive for marijuana
at the time of birth. On January 5, 2016, the child was adjudicated to be in need
of assistance (CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o)
(2015).
The child was removed from the mother’s care on September 16, 2016,
when the mother tested positive for methamphetamine. After the child’s removal,
the mother no longer participated in services. She tested positive for
methamphetamine in December 2016 and marijuana in February 2017. The
mother became homeless and remained unemployed.
The State filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights on
April 7, 2017. After the petition was filed, the mother began outpatient treatment
for substance abuse and began attending mental health therapy. She lived in a
homeless shelter. Her paramour also has serious substance abuse issues.
3
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s rights under section
232.116(1)(g) and (h) (2017).1 The court found termination was in the child’s
best interests and none of the exceptions found in section 232.116(3) applied.
The mother now appeals the termination of her parental rights.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is needed to
establish the grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, there is no serious or
substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the
evidence. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L.,
459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Extension of Time
The mother does not dispute the statutory grounds for terminating her
parental rights. She asks for an additional six months to work on reunification
with the child. The mother claims it would be in the child’s best interests to give
the mother more time to address her substance-abuse and mental-health
problems. She points out she recently began addressing her problems. She
states she has a close bond with the child.
The juvenile court stated:
[The mother] asks for an extension of time for reunification
efforts, and points to her close bond with the child and recent
commitment to substance abuse and mental health services.
1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He has not appealed.
4
Nevertheless, “our legislature has constructed a time frame to
balance a parent’s efforts against the child’s long-term best
interests.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). In this
case, when [the mother] so significantly delayed seriously
addressing her substance abuse and mental health concerns both
before and after the child’s removal from her care, the balance has
tipped toward providing [the child] with permanency regarding his
relationship with his mother.
We concur in the juvenile court’s statements. The CINA adjudication
occurred on January 5, 2016, and the child was removed on September 16,
2016. The mother did not begin to address her substance abuse problems and
mental health concerns until after the termination petition was filed on April 7,
2017. She had a lengthy period of time in which she could have taken steps to
address her parenting deficiencies but did little until termination of her parental
rights was looming. Based on her past history, we find it is unlikely the child
could be returned to her care after an additional six months. We conclude it
would not be in the child’s best interests to further extend this case.
We affirm the juvenile court decision terminating the mother’s parental
rights.
AFFIRMED.