In re Interest of C.W.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-1586,20-1586 |
| Parties | In the INTEREST OF C.W., B.W., and I.W., Minor Children, A.W., Mother, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
T. Cody Farrens of Fankhauser, Farrens, & Rachel, P.L.C., Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Joseph W. Kertels of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. We find reasonable efforts were made to reunite the family, clear and convincing evidence supports termination, and termination is in the children's best interests. We affirm.
A.W. is the mother of B.W., born in 2015; C.W., born in 2017; and I.W., born in 2019.1
The family was first involved with the department of human services (DHS) beginning in October 2015 because of the mother's marijuana use while pregnant with the oldest child. The child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) in March 2016. The child was placed in foster care due to the mother's continued use of marijuana and alcohol. The mother completed treatment in July 2016, and the child was returned to the mother's care. In March 2017, the CINA proceeding was dismissed.
In January 2018, a new DHS investigation began due to reported drug use in the family's house. There were concerns of drug use by both the mother (marijuana) and the legal father (methamphetamine). The investigation resulted in CINA adjudications in April 2018 for the older two children, but they were not removed from the home. The children tested positive for cannabinoids in May.
On June 6, the mother began an outpatient-treatment program. The children remained in the mother's custody due to her participation in services and the progress she made.
In September, the mother alleged there had been a physical altercation with her father's significant other. The responding officer performed an alcohol sobriety test, which the mother failed. The children were in the home under the mother's care at the time. After the incident, the mother did not report her alcohol use to her treatment program providers, but she did participate more often and eventually completed the program in March 2019.2
Following a permanency hearing in March, the juvenile court found "the least restrictive, most appropriate permanency option" was for the children to remain in the mother's care with protective supervision by DHS and allow the legal father additional time to work toward reunification.
In early July 2019, the biological father of C.W. had his parental rights terminated. The court ordered a dispositional review/dismissal hearing for the mother to take place in five months.
On July 11, the mother—while pregnant with I.W.—tested positive for marijuana. She tested positive again the next week when I.W. was born. Two days after I.W.’s birth, a CINA petition was filed for the youngest child, and the child was adjudicated CINA on September 10. All three children were removed from the mother's custody on September 10. The children were placed in the legal father's custody.
The mother's drug and alcohol tests in August, September, and October were negative for all tested substances. The mother cared for the children at the father's house from 6:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. while he was working.
On November 16, at approximately 5:00 a.m., law enforcement responded to a 911 call by the mother, reporting the legal father assaulted her while in the oldest child's presence. Methamphetamine was found in the home, and the legal father was arrested on multiple charges. All three children were removed from the legal father's custody on November 19, and drug tests on the older two children were positive for methamphetamine.3 The mother was also tested and was negative for methamphetamine. The children were placed in the home of the mother's grandmother ("grandmother"), where the mother was also staying. The mother requested custody of the children be returned to her.
On December 9, genetic testing determined M.T. was the biological father of I.W. M.T. requested custody of I.W. The DHS case plan for December noted the mother's progress since the July removal and recommended a dispositional review hearing in five months. On December 23, custody of the children was transferred to DHS and for placement with a relative (not a parent) or foster care. The children were placed with a relative of the legal father. In late January, the children were moved to the grandmother's home.
In February 2020, the mother failed to appear for a requested drug test and lied about working during the time the test was requested. In early March, DHS discovered the mother was staying at the grandmother's home—the children's placement—without approval from DHS or the children's guardian ad litem. The children were moved to other relative placements.
At a May drug test, after discovering it would be a hair-stat test instead of a urinalysis, the mother excused herself to make a call, left the testing site for two hours, washed her hair, and then returned to submit her hair for the drug test. At a May 19 visit, the mother had a black eye, bruises, and a broken thumbnail, but she assured the family services consultant the injuries were caused by a fall down the stairs. DHS updated its case plan in May, again noting the mother "continues to make progress towards her case plan goals" and recommending another five months of supervision. The dispositional review hearing was continued to July.
On June 9, a petition to terminate the legal father's parental rights was filed.
At her June 17 drug testing, the mother "appeared to attempt to tamper with" her urinalysis, which came back negative. The next day, she refused to submit another sample, claiming to be sick and indicating it could be COVID-19. At that time, her visits with the children (three days a week for several hours each) were suspended until she could be tested for COVID-19.
At a substance-abuse assessment on June 25, the mother admitted to relapsing on marijuana and alcohol, smoking every other day and drinking daily.4 The mother testified the evening of June 25, she was drinking with M.T. and was assaulted by another woman, giving her a black eye. On June 30, the mother entered an inpatient rehabilitation center. She did not tell DHS she was entering the treatment program. She began video visits with the children the second week of July.5
On July 1, DHS updated its case plan, now noting the mother's struggle with honesty and substance abuse.
On July 13, at a permanency hearing, the DHS case manager was asked what barriers she saw to placing the children with the mother at her treatment program. The case manager stated the mother needed more than two weeks of sobriety, needed to continue with the video visits, was to be honest and forthcoming, and needed to complete all the tasks in the court order. The case manager also expressed concern that the mother was drinking heavily when she was having four visits a week with the children in May and June. The case manager stated she did not want to move the children from their placement without knowing the mother would stay committed to the treatment process. At no point in the proceedings did the mother maintain employment for more than a few months. She relied on her family and the legal father to provide housing and did not maintain her own residence.
On July 20, the State filed a petition to terminate the mother's rights.
On August 14, the mother filed a motion to return the children to her custody and requested additional services focused on the noted barriers toward reunification. On August 21, the mother completed the inpatient treatment program and moved briefly to the grandmother's home. She was scheduled to move into an apartment in a structured-living community with on-site outpatient programming.
A hearing was held on permanency and termination of the mother's parental rights on August 24, 27, and 28.
The court terminated the mother's rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020) (as to B.W.), 232.116(1)(h) (as to B.W. and I.W.), 232.116(1)(i) (all), and 232.116(1)(l ) (all).
"Our review in proceedings to terminate parental rights is generally de novo." In re L.T. , 924 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 2019). "There must be clear and convincing evidence of the grounds for termination of parental rights." In re M.W. , 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). Clear and convincing evidence means there are "no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence." In re L.H. , 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The paramount concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re J.E. , 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
On appeal, the mother raises several issues. First, she claims DHS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. Next, she asserts the State failed to establish any of the grounds for termination. Finally, she claims termination of her rights is not in the best interests of the children.
Reasonable Efforts. The mother claims that by refusing to place the children with her in the treatment facility after the petition to terminate her parental rights had been filed, DHS failed to make reasonable efforts.
"DHS is to provide ‘every reasonable effort to return the child to the child's home as quickly as possible consistent with the best interests of the child.’ " L.T. , 924 N.W.2d at 528 (quoting Iowa Code § 232.102(7) ). This obligation "runs until the juvenile court has entered a final written order of termination." Id. "[R]easonable efforts can, and often do, include efforts toward reunifying a family, but the child's health and safety are paramount and conditions precedent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial