In the Interest of K.R.M., No. 9-037/08-2024 (Iowa App. 2/19/2009)

• Decision Date: 19 February 2009
• Docket Number: No. 9-037/08-2024.,9-037/08-2024.
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.M., Minor Child C.L.M., Mother, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

Page 1

IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.M., Minor Child C.L.M., Mother, Appellant.

No. 9-037/08-2024.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Filed February 19, 2009.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott, District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Steven J. Holwerda of Holwerda Law Office, Newton, for appellant mother. Shawn Lane, pro se appellee.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, R. Steven Johnson, County Attorney, and James W. Cleverly Jr., Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.

Meegan Keller, Altoona, for minor child.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Potterfield, JJ.

POTTERFIELD, J.

A mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her child.¹ She contends the juvenile court erred in determining clear and convincing evidence existed in the record to support the termination of her parental rights. Upon our de novo review, we reverse.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The mother, C.L.M., is herself adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) due to her parents' substance abuse problems and C.L.M.'s behavioral issues. C.L.M. was fourteen years old when she became pregnant. She entered a program at the House of Mercy that provides assistance to adolescent pregnant women. While there, she gave birth to a son, K.R.M., in June 2007. The State filed a CINA petition immediately following K.R.M.'s birth, based upon his mother's lack of maturity and the likelihood of imminent harm. K.R.M. was adjudicated CINA on July 26, 2007. C.L.M. and infant K.R.M. resided together at House of Mercy for the first four months of K.R.M.'s life.

On October 26, 2007, C.L.M. was dismissed from the House of Mercy program because she was not complying with program requirements. She skipped school and was defiant and angry. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) placed C.L.M. in Four Oaks, which has a twelve- to eighteen-month residential treatment program. Four Oaks does not have a program that accommodates young parents with their children, nor does it offer parenting classes or help. C.L.M. was placed there to work on her own trust issues that resulted from a chaotic family life where she experienced sexual abuse and had substance abusing parents. K.R.M. was placed in family foster care near Four Oaks to facilitate visitation between mother and son. For the first six months of C.L.M.'s placement at Four Oaks, she continued to struggle with her own behavior — defiance, lying and impulsivity. During that time, she was suspended from high school and often did not earn her visits with K.R.M. However, in April 2008, C.L.M. started to make good progress. Her attitude and behaviors were positive and she actively participated in her treatment. C.L.M. attended daily skill groups, individual skill sessions with her advocate, and weekly therapy with her therapist. C.L.M. managed her anger better. She interacted with her peers better. She became a leader and a role model for other residents. She saw K.R.M. regularly and her parenting improved. C.L.M. worked on building a more positive relationship with her own parents, especially her mother. She was doing better at school, although she is not a good test-taker. C.L.M. proudly earned an A in her class in child development, and developed a good relationship with K.R.M.'s foster mother.

The State filed a petition to terminate her parental rights on September 11, 2008, alleging K.R.M. could not be returned to C.L.M. because "[s]he is not able to return to her home nor have a child in her care."

An October 2008 DHS report noted continued progress for C.L.M.: she met program expectations, earned home visits with her own parents, and visited K.R.M. on a consistent basis. She attended classes and behaved appropriately. C.L.M. used coping and anger management skills she had learned. C.L.M. continued to attend daily skill groups, individual skill sessions with her advocate and weekly therapy with her therapist. C.L.M. would soon be eligible to be released from Four Oaks.

A termination hearing was held on November 24, 2008. At the hearing, witnesses testified about C.L.M.'s progress, most noting she was a very different person than when she entered the Four Oaks program. Edward Beard, C.L.M.'s social worker, noted that C.L.M. continued to need support and structure. Luis Antonio Cruz, previously C.L.M.'s youth counselor and advocate (he had changed employment), acknowledged her progress, but noted that parenting skills were not taught at Four Oaks. Steven Seuferlein, C.L.M.'s youth counselor and shift leader at Four Oaks, testified as to the changes he had seen in her behavior. He recommended a residential facility for C.L.M. that focuses more on her mothering skills than her own behavior.

C.L.M. presented the testimony of Renae Halder, the program coordinator at Lighthouse Host Home, a transitional program for pregnant and/or parenting mothers ages sixteen to twenty-six. Ms. Halder stated the program provides support to young mothers and offers help with parenting, living skills, gaining employment, or going back to school. Women did not necessarily have to have current custody of their children to enter the program, so long as they were working on gaining custody. Women and their children were allowed to stay in the program up to two years. Ms. Halder stated that though she had not yet gone through the formal interview process, C.L.M. met the general eligibility requirements for the program and that there were currently openings available. In her own testimony, C.L.M. asked to go to the Lighthouse program with K.R.M. and to be given a chance to parent him, to work on school, and to get a job.

The juvenile court terminated C.L.M.'s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (2007) (requiring proof of prior adjudication, subsequent offer or receipt of services to correct situation, and proof that circumstances leading to adjudication continue to exist) and 232.116(1)(h) (child three years or younger, adjudicated CINA, removed from the physical custody of the child's parent for at least six months of the last twelve months, and cannot be returned to parent's custody).

On appeal, C.L.M. contends DHS placed her in a treatment program that they knew would take longer than the statutory timetable. She argues that the program worked as it was intended and now that she is able to work toward reunification with her child in an appropriate program, it was wrong for the juvenile court to terminate her rights without allowing her that opportunity.

II. Scope and Standard of Review.

We review termination of parental rights de novo. In re Z.H., 740 N.W.2d 648, 650-51 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). Grounds for termination must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). "Clear and convincing evidence" means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness or conclusions of law drawn from the evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 798. In evaluating the best interests of a child, we consider both the immediate and long-term interests. Id. We "afford a rebuttable presumption that the best interest of a child is served when custody is with the natural parents." In re N.M., 491 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Iowa 1992).

III. Discussion.

To support termination of a parent's rights, the court must determine that a child would suffer harm if returned to the parent's care. In re J.R., 478 N.W.2d 409, 412 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991); see In re Chad, 318 N.W.2d 213, 219 (Iowa 1982). That a child would suffer harm by a return to a parent must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. In re D.P., 465 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990).

The question is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that K.R.M. could not be returned to C.L.M.'s care at the time of the termination hearing without being subject to "some harm which would justify the adjudication of the child as a child in need of assistance." Iowa Code § 232.102(5)(a)(2). From our de novo review of the record, we conclude the answer is no.

All agree here that C.L.M. has made great progress. Testimony was presented showing that there is a safe placement at Lighthouse for C.L.M. where she can work toward reunification with her child and continue to receive treatment and support focusing more on her parenting. Although C.L.M. is not able to parent K.R.M. independently, she is able to do so in the structured setting offered by the Lighthouse program. The program allows a mother and her child to stay up to two years, provides parenting help and instruction, and offers school and work opportunities. The juvenile court acknowledged C.L.M.'s opportunity to seek admittance into the Lighthouse program, but did not indicate why or whether it would not have met the needs of K.R.M.

The parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S. Ct. 549, 554, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 519 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 35 (1972). There is a rebuttable presumption that a child's interests are best served by leaving the child in the care of the child's parents. See In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 1990). Our cases have emphasized that in times of need parents should be encouraged to look for help in caring for their children without risking loss of custody. In re Guardianship of Sams, 256 N.W.2d 570, 573 (Iowa 1977); Hulbert v. Hines, 178 N.W.2d 354, 361 (Iowa 1970). It has been said that "[t]he presumption preferring parental custody is not overcome by a mere showing that such assistance has been obtained." Sams, 256 N.W.2d at 573. Even less so by a showing that such assistance is sought. We do not find clear and convincing evidence...