IN THE INTEREST OF R.M. and J.B.-C., Minor Children, B.M.C., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-885 / 09-1429
Filed November 25, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF R.M. and J.B.-C.,
Minor Children,
B.M.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Timothy J. Tupper, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Jack Dusthimer, Davenport, for father of R.M.
Brenda Drew-Peeples, Davenport, for father of J.B.-C.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Gerda C. Lane,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Carrie Coyle, Davenport, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights. Upon our
de novo review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
B.C. is the mother of A.H., born June 1995; J.B.-C., born April 2003; and
R.M., born September 2006.1 The mother has a history of substance abuse,
alcohol abuse, and mental illness. She has been diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder, emotional intensity disorder, and anxiety, and she has been
prescribed medication for her illnesses.
In approximately 2005, the mother began a relationship with D.M., R.M.’s
father.2 D.M. has a history of domestic abuse. In 2006 and early 2007, police
were called numerous times due to violence between the mother and D.M.
The children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (Department) on March 24, 2007, after it was reported that the mother
and D.M. were constantly fighting in front of the children and the police had been
called to their home four times in the past week.
The abuse report was
determined to be founded by the Department, and a case plan was implemented.
The mother and D.M. were offered services, but D.M. refused to participate in
services and announced he no intention of quitting his substance abuse or
drinking.
1
This appeal concerns only the termination of the mother’s parental rights to
J.B.-C. and R.M.
2
D.M. and J.B.-C.’s fathers have not appealed from the termination of their
parental rights.
3
After the case was opened, the mother and D.M. initially stopped seeing
one another.
However, their separation was short-lived.
In April 2007, the
mother was arrested for trespass after she pushed her way into the home of
D.M.’s friend when D.M. was there.
A safety plan was initiated by the
Department, and the mother was to stay away from D.M. and D.M.’s friends. The
mother was approved for placing the children in protective daycare, and the
children were allowed to remain in the mother’s care.
On October 4, 2007,
following a stipulation by the parties, the juvenile court adjudicated the children to
be children in need of assistance (CINA).
Despite the safety plan’s requirement that the mother not have contact
with D.M., the mother continued having contact with D.M. though most of the
case.
The mother was also inconsistent with services.
In March 2008, the
mother agreed to voluntarily place the children with her maternal aunt after
repeatedly violating the safety plan by exposing the children to D.M., who
continued to refuse to cooperate with services. Even after the children were
removed, the mother continued to have contact with D.M.
The mother then agreed to have another substance abuse evaluation,
start domestic violence counseling, continue parenting sessions and visitation
with her children, learn how to develop healthy relationships, and end all contact
with D.M. However, the mother admitted to spending time with D.M. in May
2008. The mother’s employment was terminated in early May. Following an
evaluation, it was recommended the mother attend an intensive outpatient
treatment program. The mother then entered an outpatient treatment program at
the end of May.
4
The mother’s aunt and uncle determined they were unable to keep the
children full time for a long time span. The aunt’s sister-in-law and husband
agreed to help out, and the parties agreed the children would live with the
relatives full time after the school year ended. Following a contested review
hearing and modification of disposition hearing, the district court on May 29,
2008, ordered that the children be placed in the relatives’ care pursuant to the
voluntary placement agreement between the mother and the Department. The
court determined the modification was necessary due to the mother’s repeated
violation of the safety plan by her continuing to expose the children to D.M. on
almost a daily basis, as well as joint parental substance abuse and the continuing
history of violence between the mother and D.M.
The mother admitted to drinking in June, but she successfully graduated
from the outpatient treatment program on July 8, 2008. In August, the mother
had contacts with D.M., including a physical altercation between the mother and
D.M. The mother admitted to drinking alcohol the night of the altercation, and
she sought out a protection order against D.M.
The mother’s therapist
terminated counseling services with the mother in mid-August due to the mother
cancelling and rescheduling appointments repeatedly.
The mother admitted she may not have always been honest about her
alcohol issues in the past, and she admitted she may need inpatient treatment.
She admitted to drinking on September 14, 2008. The mother was referred to
Hightower Place, an inpatient substance abuse treatment in a group home
setting, and she began treatment on September 17, 2008. Following a review
hearing, the juvenile court on November 7, 2008, entered its review order finding
5
that although the mother appeared to be complying with the substance abuse
treatment program, her compliance with services was only a little better than it
had been prior to her placement at Hightower Place. The court found the mother
was not a dependable reporter and had been deceptive and deceitful. The court
further found the mother was unreliable in maintaining visits and that the mother
and D.M.’s relationship remained volatile and violent. The court noted that the
mother had obtained a no-contact order against D.M. the week of October 20,
2008, but thereafter initiated phone contact with him once again.
The court
ordered the mother to comply with the case plan and set the matter for
permanency.
The mother obtained employment in mid-November but quit after a few
weeks. She obtained employment again in January 2009, but she was let go in
late February or early March due to attendance issues.
The mother graduated from Hightower Place on February 9, 2009. After
leaving, the mother only attended aftercare five or six times.
The mother
admitted she began a relationship with a man she met from AA and that the
relationship turned abusive early on. After that relationship ended, the mother
became involved with another man who was her drinking partner before entering
Hightower Place. The mother admitted the man was a drinker but claimed that
the man would not drink around her anymore.
Following a permanency hearing, the juvenile court on April 30, 2009,
ordered the State file a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The
court found the mother was still involved in an unhealthy relationship with a pastusing partner, had lost her job, and had broken ties with her sponsor. The court
6
found the mother continued to be inconsistent with services and that the children
could not be safely returned to her care.
After the permanency hearing, the mother relapsed by drinking alcohol.
The mother was evicted on May 1, 2009, and was accepted into the Freedom
Homes Ministries in Davenport, Iowa. She was then asked to leave the program
in June due to her attitude and causing drama with the staff. She then moved in
with her maternal aunt and uncle.
On June 4, 2008, the State filed petitions to terminate the mother’s
paternal rights to R.M. and J.B.-C. On June 11, 2009, the mother entered a
substance abuse treatment center. The mother was recommended to attend the
dual diagnosis group, the relapse prevention group, and the healthy relationship
group. The mother missed several groups, and on July 14, 2009, the mother
tested positive for marijuana.
A contested termination of parental rights hearing was held on August 27
and September 2, 2009. The mother testified that she had been sober for four
and a half months at the time of trial. However, the mother testified her last visit
to her therapist was in July and that she had missed three appointments. The
mother further testified that at the time of trial she had missed her outpatient
groups and AA meetings for two weeks. The mother admitted that two days
before trial, the police were called concerning issues with her current
relationship, specifically that her boyfriend had come home intoxicated and asked
her to leave. He called the police and told the officers when they arrived he did
not know the mother, and the officers asked the mother to leave. The mother
7
admitted she had been previously unemployed, but testified she had obtained
employment the day of the trial.
The Department’s caseworker testified that the mother had been
inconsistent with services and in addressing her substance abuse issues
throughout the pendency of the case. The worker testified that the mother was
most consistent with her visitation of R.M. and J.B.-C., and that the mother and
R.M. and J.B.-C. were bonded. The worker further testified that the children
were thriving in the home of the relatives, but the relatives had decided they
could not adopt R.M. or J.B.-C. The worker testified that other relatives were
being considered as a potential placement for the children. However, the worker
did not believe the children could be safely returned to the mother’s care due to
the mother’s inconsistency with services and her substance abuse history.
On September 4, 2009, the juvenile court entered its order terminating the
mother’s parental rights to R.M. and J.B.-C. pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), and (f) (2009). The mother now appeals.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d
147, 149 (Iowa 2005). Although we give weight to the juvenile court’s findings of
fact, we are not bound by them. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001).
The grounds for termination must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Evidence is clear and
convincing when it leaves “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness
of the conclusion drawn from it.” In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002).
8
Our primary concern in termination cases is the best interests of the children. In
re A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
III. Discussion.
On appeal, the mother argues termination of her parental rights was not in
the best interests of the children. The State argues that error was not preserved
on this issue.
We will bypass the State’s error preservation concerns and
proceed to the merits. See State v. Taylor, 596 N.W.2d 55, 56 (Iowa 1999).
As stated above, our primary concern in termination cases is the best
interests of the children. A.S., 743 N.W.2d at 867. “A child’s safety and the need
for a permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s
best interests.”
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J.,
concurring specially). Those best interests are to be determined by looking at
the children’s long-range as well as immediate interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d
170, 172 (Iowa 1997). We are to consider what the future likely holds for the
children if the children are returned to the parents. In re J.K., 495 N.W.2d 108,
110 (Iowa 1993). Insight for that determination is to be gained from evidence of
the parents’ past performance, for that performance may be indicative of the
quality of the future care that the parent is capable of providing. In re L.L., 459
N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 1990); In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa
1981).
The children first came to the attention of the Department in March 2007,
and the children have been out of the mother’s care since March 2008. By the
time of the termination hearing in August 2009, the children had been removed
from the mother’s care for more than fourteen months.
Despite the offer of
9
services and substance abuse treatment, the mother continued to abuse
substances and entered into inappropriate relationships. During the six months
prior to the termination hearing, the mother consistently failed to address her
substance abuse and mental health issues, and she twice relapsed on drugs and
alcohol.
It is not possible to have confidence that this mother will be able to
maintain sobriety and a commitment to change.
[A] good prediction of the future conduct of a parent is to look at the
past conduct. Thus, in considering the impact of a drug addiction,
we must consider the treatment history of the parent to gauge the
likelihood the parent will be in a position to parent the child in the
foreseeable future. Where the parent has been unable to rise
above the addiction and experience sustained sobriety in a
noncustodial setting, and establish the essential support system to
maintain sobriety, there is little hope of success in parenting.
In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted). We are
sympathetic to the mother’s struggle to maintain sobriety, and recognize that
many are able to successfully free themselves from the tenacious grip of
addiction. Yet the interests in permanency for the children must prevail over the
mother’s uncertain battle with alcohol. See id. We have repeatedly followed the
principle that the statutory time line must be followed, and children should not be
forced to wait for the parent to overcome their addiction.
Id.
The mother’s
frequent relapses during the pendency of this case along with her continued
inconsistency with services and inappropriate relationships evidence the children
will not be able to return to the mother’s custody within a reasonable period of
time considering the children’s age and need for a permanent home. See Iowa
Code §§ 232.116(1)(f), (h).
10
“When the statutory time standards found in section 232.116 are
approaching, and a parent has made only minimal progress, the child[ren]
deserve[] to have the time standards followed by having termination of parental
rights promptly pursued.” In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App.
1997). “At some point, the rights and needs of the child[ren] rise above the rights
and needs of the parents.” Id.
We recognize that the mother and R.M. and J.B.-C. have a close bond.
This bond, however, is offset by the urgent need to establish permanency for the
children. The best interests of the children, particularly the children’s safety,
outweigh the desire to preserve the parent-child bond. We conclude termination
of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
IV. Conclusion.
Because we conclude that termination of the mother’s parental rights was
in the children’s best interests, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
