IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0636
Filed July 21, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.,
Minor Child,
J.B., Father,
Appellant,
N.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Bridget L. Goldbeck of Hughes & Trannel, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant
father.
Taryn McCarthy of Clemens, Walters, Conlon, Runde & Hiatt, L.L.P.,
Dubuque, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Kristy Hefel, Dubuque, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J. and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights. The parents individually contend termination is not in the best interest of
their child and an extension of time for reunification efforts should be granted. The
mother also argues insufficient evidence exists in the record to terminate her
parental rights on the grounds relied upon by the juvenile court. We conclude
termination of the mother and father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests,
a six-month extension is not warranted for either parent, and clear and convincing
evidence supports termination of the mother’s parental rights on a statutory ground
relied upon by the juvenile court. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
N.M., mother, and J.B., father, are the parents of L.M., born in 2020. L.M.
initially came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) at
birth in January 2020 when she was born with an illegal substance in her system.
L.M., born at thirty-seven weeks gestation, weighed three pounds, fifteen ounces
at birth. A founded child-abuse assessment for the presence of illegal drugs in the
child was entered against the mother. Court involvement was not requested as
part of the assessment.
L.M. again came to the attention of DHS after six-month-old L.M. presented
in the emergency room for injuries the mother reported were received as a result
of a fifteen-inch fall from a couch onto carpet. Following a medical examination
and discovery of retinal hemorrhaging and a subdural hematoma, L.M. was
transferred to the University of Iowa, where medical professionals determined the
mother’s explanation for the injuries could not account for the severity of the
3
injuries. The University of Iowa reported L.M. had approximately fifty discreet
hemorrhages in multiple layers of the left eye, with the most likely cause being
trauma. The exam also noted a traumatic subdural hemorrhage with a loss of
consciousness in an unspecified duration. L.M. was reported to have both acute
and resolving brain bleeds. A child-abuse assessment was founded for physical
abuse, denial of critical care, and failure to provide proper supervision, listing the
mother as the perpetrator of abuse. Upon discharge from the hospital, L.M.
remained in the custody of her mother pursuant to a safety plan that included the
mother participating in family preservation services and full-time supervision of the
mother’s care of L.M. by a relative.
During the abuse assessment, the maternal grandmother reported that the
mother had been consuming alcohol and Xanax, and because the maternal
grandmother had to work, she left L.M. in the sole care of the baby’s mother,
contrary to the safety plan. L.M. was removed from parental custody on July 31,
2020, due to the mother’s failure to comply with the safety plan. The mother tested
positive for methamphetamine and marijuana on August 20. L.M. was adjudicated
a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) on September 21, pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2020). The child has remained in the custody
of DHS for relative placement since removal.1
Citing in part a lack of parental progress, the State filed a petition on
February 23, 2021, requesting termination of the parents’ rights. At the termination
1 This relative has care of another child of the mother, although it does not appear
from the record before this court that the mother’s parental rights have been
terminated to this child, who was approximately nine years of age at the birth of
L.M.
4
hearing on March 31, concerns remained regarding the mother’s substance abuse
and mental health. The mother continued to assert the cause of L.M.’s injuries
was a roll-off from a couch. The father did not have an approved home study, had
recently entered guilty pleas to substance-related charges, and was awaiting
sentencing.
The court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2021). The parents’ request for an extension of time for
reunification efforts was denied. The court found termination was in the child’s
best interest and declined to apply any expectations to the termination. Both the
mother and father timely appealed.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear and
convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to the
correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary
concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa
2014).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The mother argues insufficient evidence exists to support termination of her
parental rights on any grounds relied on by the juvenile court. When the court
terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the
district court’s order on any ground we find supported by the record. A.B., 815
N.W.2d at 774. For purposes of the mother’s challenge, we focus on the
5
termination of the mother’s rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h). “We consider
whether the children could be returned to the parent’s care at the time of the
termination hearing.” In re M.M., No. 20-0058, 2020 WL 1310254, at *4 (Iowa Ct.
App. Mar. 18, 2020) (citing In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 224 (Iowa 2016)).
Section 232.116(1)(h) requires: (1) that the child is three years old or
younger; (2) has been adjudicated as a CINA; (3) the child has been removed from
the parents’ care for at least six of the last twelve months, or for the last six
consecutive months with any trial period at home being less than thirty days; and
(4) that there is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to
the custody of the child’s parents at the present time. L.M. was born in January
2020. She was approximately fourteen months old at the time of the termination
hearing. She was adjudicated a CINA. At the time of the termination hearing, L.M.
had been removed from parental custody for a period of eight months. She has
not returned to parental custody since the initial removal.
The mother refused to acknowledge the source of L.M.’s injuries. This lack
of recognition is sufficient to prevent a return of the child to the home. In addition
to the problems surrounding L.M.’s severe injuries, the mother continued to
struggle with substance-abuse and mental-health issues. She missed drug tests
and appointments with her mental-health providers. She tested positive for illegal
substances one month prior to the termination hearing. The mother’s visits with
L.M. have remained fully supervised. We, like the juvenile court, conclude there is
clear and convincing evidence that L.M. could not be safely returned to her
mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing. Clear and convincing
6
evidence supports termination of the mother’s rights pursuant to section
232.116(1)(h).
IV. Best Interests
Both parents claim termination of their parental rights was not in L.M.’s best
interests. “When we consider whether parental rights should be terminated, we
‘give primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering
the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and
emotional condition and needs of the child.’” M.W., 876 N.W.2d at 224 (quoting
Iowa Code § 232.116(2)).
L.M. is bonded to her relative placement, where she has resided since
removal. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics follow L.M. for her condition
due to her injuries. While she initially experienced seizures due to her injuries, at
the most recent appointment in February 2021, L.M.’s physician recommended
tapering off the seizure medication.2 L.M. is behind in her gross motor skills
development.
The father contends termination is not in L.M.’s best interest as there are
no safety concerns regarding his parenting, his substance use does not interfere
with his ability to parent the child, and he stays in contact with the child’s placement
and the provider. However, since removal, the father has seen L.M. twice a month
for approximately two hours a month. The father’s home study was not approved.
Further, the father was awaiting sentencing at the time of the termination hearing
2The mother testified at the termination hearing that L.M. was no longer taking
seizure medication.
7
on charges from 2018 and 2020.3 He recently pled guilty to operating while
intoxicated (OWI) (second offense) and resisting or obstructing an officer, arising
out of a 2020 arrest. The felony eluding charge was dismissed as part of a plea
agreement. The father also pled guilty in February 2021 to two charges incurred
in 2018, consisting of a hit and run and operating while revoked, with sentencing
to coincide with the hearing set concerning the 2020 charges.4 Termination of the
father’s parental rights is in the L.M.’s best interests.
Termination of the mother’s parental rights is in L.M.’s best interests for the
same reasons detailed concerning the mother’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence
argument, including the mother’s ongoing mental-health and substance-abuse
issues, inability to parent the child on her own, and failure to acknowledge the
source of L.M.’s injuries. Generally, if the grounds for termination have been
proven, termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. See In re
L.M.F., 490 N.W.2d 66, 68 (Iowa 1992).
V. Request for Six-Month Extension
Both parents argue the juvenile court should have granted additional time
to work toward reunification. Under section 232.117(5), the court may order an
extension of time under section 232.104(2)(b) as an alternative to terminating
parental rights. A six-month extension may be granted based on a “determination
that the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at
3 Sentencing was set for a date following the termination hearing.
4 The mother informed L.M.’s medical providers she was involved in a violent
relationship with the father. The record before of us is void of additional evidence
of domestic abuse by the father toward the mother. The mother was arrested in
late August 2020 for domestic abuse assault impeding airflow, with the alleged
victim being the mother’s sister. The record does not reflect a conviction.
8
the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We are
further mindful that a child should not be asked to continuously wait for a stable
biological parent, particularly when the child is of tender age. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010); In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474 (Iowa Ct. App.
2011). “Courts are obliged to move urgently to achieve the ends that will best
serve the child’s interests because childhood does not ‘await the wanderings of
judicial process.’” In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495, 502 (Iowa 2014).
The mother continues to struggle to address substance-abuse and mental-
health concerns. After removal, she entered Heart of Iowa but left prior to
completing the program. She was terminated from a shelter care placement due
to testing positive for THC and breaking COVID-19 protocol. She is now residing
in an apartment, which could not accommodate her daughter’s placement. She
has refused to accept any responsibility for her daughter’s substantial injuries and
has not wavered from her initial explanation that the injuries were received from
rolling off the couch onto a carpeted floor.
The father in this case remains residing in Wisconsin, approximately three
hours from his daughter’s residence. Since removal, he has exercised ten
separate visits, averaging two hours per visit. He does not have a driver’s license
due to his criminal convictions and must rely on others for transportation. His home
study was not approved due to substance-abuse concerns in the home, related to
both the father and his new girlfriend.5 He recently pled guilty to OWI (second
5 The father testified his girlfriend is required to have a breathalyzer in her vehicle
“due to a traffic stop that she was apparently intoxicated for and blew clear over
the legal limit.” The father’s girlfriend reported to the Interstate Compact on the
9
offense) and resisting or obstructing an officer. At the time of the termination
hearing, he was awaiting sentencing.6 Despite that arrest, he admitted to
marijuana use just several months prior to the termination hearing and to the use
of alcohol three weeks prior to the hearing.7 He has a conviction history that
involves a hit-and-run and operating while revoked.
Since removal, both the mother and father have been unable to make
changes that would facilitate reunification. L.M. should not be forced to wait
indefinitely for her parents to be able to care for her, “particularly when we have so
little evidence to rely upon to believe the circumstances will be different in six
months.” See In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). We, like the
juvenile court, are unable to determine the need for removal of the child from the
child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period. An
extension of time for either parent is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the
juvenile court decision terminating the parental rights of L.M.’s mother and father.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Placement of Children evaluator that she was charged with an OWI and smokes
THC once a month.
6 A condition of the father’s bond was “absolute sobriety.”
7 The father testified the type of marijuana he used prior to the termination hearing
was legal in Wisconsin. As to his recent use of alcohol, he stated, “The alcohol,
again, is like every—once every three weeks on the weekend, just who doesn’t?”