In re J.C.
| Decision Date | 12 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-2093 |
| Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF J.C. AND N.C., Minor Children, A.P., Mother, Appellant, B.C., Father, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison District Associate Judge.
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.
Deborah L. Johnson of Deborah L. Johnson Law Office, P.C. Altoona, for appellant mother.
Lisa A. Allison of Allison Law Firm, LLC, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney for J.C. and guardian ad litem for minor children.
ConGarry Williams of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney for N.C.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J. [*]
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children-born in 2006 and 2016-under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2022). Both parents challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting the ground for termination and request additional time to work toward reunification. The mother also argues termination is contrary to the children's best interests.
The children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in April 2021 upon allegations that the mother was using methamphetamine while caring for them. The mother did not cooperate with drug testing, and the HHS discovered she was recently discharged from opioid-abuse treatment due to a positive drug test. Because the mother would not cooperate with safety planning, the HHS sought and obtained an order for temporary removal. Pretty much all that was known about the father at this point was that he lived in Florida and had not had any contact with the mother or children for some time. Turns out, the mother had left Florida with the children several years before and never advised the father about where they were. The court subsequently adjudicated the children as in need of assistance.
From there, the mother avoided drug tests and denied use for several months. She did not meaningfully participate in any services until February 2022. At that point in time, she began a medication-assisted treatment (MAT) program, but that program was only aimed at her misuse of opioids, as opposed to methamphetamine abuse. She also began telehealth therapy. Also in February, however, the mother's house burned down. One of the police officers who responded to the scene opined, based on her training and experience, the mother was "acting like she was high on methamphetamine or another stimulant." Two other officers concurred in this assessment.
The mother participated in her first formal drug screen in March, which was positive for methamphetamine. She largely continued to avoid drug testing requests from the HHS through the time of the first day of the termination hearing in September, although she did provide one negative test in May. And while she provided various negative drug screens during appointments with her MAT provider, those screens were neither observed nor random. The mother also rescheduled several of her appointments, and the MAT provider agreed it was "possible" that the mother rescheduled these appointments in order to allow her body to metabolize any methamphetamine in her system before she took the test. While the mother's therapist agreed she never noticed any behavioral indicators of use by the mother, the therapist only met with the mother in person twice, while the remainder of their sessions were over the phone.
While the father sought out services in Florida after he became involved in the proceedings, services were essentially non-existent there. The father moved to Iowa in February 2022 to have a more meaningful shot at reunification. The caseworker agreed the father participated in pretty much every service he could after moving to Iowa. However, he had not secured housing or employment by the time of the first day of the termination hearing. As to the father's housing, he was residing at a mission and was on a waitlist for an apartment. As to his employment, he has never held a job due to his mental-health diagnosis of schizophrenia, and he relies solely on social security disability to meet his needs. The social worker testified that, given the father's long absence from the children's lives, any relationship between them is lacking, and even an additional six months would not allow those relationships to progress to an extent that the children could be placed in his custody. That said, the lack of a relationship between the father and children is not entirely his fault. Not only did the mother leave the father and take the children with her, but she did not tell the father where they relocated, and she has since influenced the children to fear the father. The caseworker additionally opined that the father could not provide full-time care to two children due to his mentalhealth issues, namely his schizophrenia. Yet, the father testified his medications stabilize the effects of his schizophrenia.
A permanency hearing was held over various days in April and May 2022. In its subsequent permanency order, the court determined the children could not wait any longer for the mother to establish and maintain sobriety. As to the father, the court noted he had not had meaningful contact with the children in years, although this was largely not his fault, and he "acknowledges a long struggle with his own mental health." Overall, the court determined "that reasonable progress is not being made by the parents in achieving the permanency goal of reunification" and, as such, modified the permanency goal to termination. The court noted its consideration of allowing only the father additional time but decided it would not alleviate the need for removal from his custody due to his current homelessness, "complex set of mental health issues," and "lengthy period of disconnection from the children."
The State filed its termination petitions in August, and the termination hearing was held over four days in September and October 2022. At the conclusion of the first day of the termination hearing on September 7, the State requested that the mother submit to hair-stat testing that very day. While her counsel agreed, the mother passively objected, noting "I have a big hole in the back of [my] head." The mother submitted to the testing, and she tested positive for methamphetamine. In a subsequent motion, the mother continued to deny using the substance and requested re-testing. The court denied the mother's request that it order re-testing but noted the HHS could do so if it desired.
On the third day of the hearing on October 12, the mother organized her own drug testing, and that hair-stat test was negative for all substances. On cross-examination about that testing at the fourth day of the hearing on October 21, the guardian ad litem pointed out that the mother had bleached her hair. The mother denied she did anything to her hair. While the court could not specifically recall what the mother's hair looked like at the time of the prior hearings, the court agreed, "I can tell its bleached in the back pretty high." Again, this drug testing was not random.
Throughout the proceedings, the mother has been hostile to pretty much everyone-the father, service providers, and even the children's guardian ad litem. She has repeatedly said inappropriate things to the children, which has resulted in her interactions with them being significantly curtailed. At the final day of the termination hearing, the older child-then sixteen years old-pleaded with the court to terminate his mother's parental rights.
In its ruling, the court detailed the mother's inability to abstain from methamphetamine use, mental-health struggles, inappropriate behavior toward the children, and general hostility. But the evidence about the father "told a very different story." The court highlighted the father's positive demeanor, patience, respectfulness, interest in the children, and unfettered cooperation with the HHS. All that said, the court acknowledged the father's ongoing struggles with meeting his own needs as a result of his "long-term, chronic mental health issues that have not always been well treated." Adding in the father's long absence from the children's lives and lack of stable housing, the court determined the father is not ready to have custody of the children, and both children are in need of permanency. Overall, the court found the children could not be returned to parental custody within the meaning of section 232.116(1)(f) and termination is in the children's best interests based on their extended period of removal and need for permanency. The court denied the mother's request for additional time, concluding her ongoing substance abuse and emotional outbursts resulting from her poor mental health would not be rectified within six months. The court acknowledged its answer to the father's request for an extension was a "closer" call. But, even assuming the father would be able to obtain safe and appropriate housing in the near future, the court determined he "would have a long way to go before he could demonstrate the ability to safely parent the children." So the court denied each parent's request for more time and terminated their parental rights.
Both parents appeal separately.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re A.B. 956 N.W.2d 162, 168 (Iowa 2021); In re C.Z., 956 N.W.2d 113, 119 (Iowa 2021). Our primary consideration is the best interests of the children, In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006), the...
To continue reading
Request your trial