IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-1404 Filed December 17, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF A.C., Minor Child,
C.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child.
AFFIRMED.
Myia E. Steines of Clemens, Walters, Conlon, Runde & Hiatt, L.L.P.,
Dubuque, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kristy L. Hefel, State Public Defender, Dubuque, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor child.
Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and
Langhholz, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to a child born in 2024.
Because the father does not appeal, we focus almost entirely on facts relating to
the mother and the child. We reject the mother’s best-interests claim, request for
additional time, and permissive-exception claim.
Background Facts and Proceedings. To quickly sum up the mother’s
four previous termination cases, the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) first became involved with this family in April 2021 after the father
strangled the mother in the presence of two of the child’s older siblings. Between
December 2022 and September 2023, all four of the child’s older siblings were
removed and adjudicated as children in need of assistance (CINAs) after HHS
found numerous child abuse allegations credible. In January 2025, the juvenile
court terminated the parents’ rights to older siblings under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2025). The mother appealed, and a panel of this
court affirmed. In re T.K., No. 25-0424, 2025 WL 1704330, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App.
June 18, 2025).
In November 2024, the child at issue here was born. The child was born
with a hole in her heart and a chronic respiratory condition, and she spent a month
in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Despite notice and opportunity, the
mother didn’t attend any of the child’s follow-up medical appointments. Medical
personnel explained to the HHS worker who attended the appointments that the
child’s condition is aggravated by cigarette smoke. The mother smoked cigarettes
through termination, but she disputed whether HHS told her to quit smoking. 3
On the same day the child was born, the juvenile court ordered temporary
removal under Iowa Code section 232.95. The court also appointed a guardian ad
litem (GAL). HHS placed the child in foster care. And in early 2025, the juvenile
court also adjudicated the child as CINA. After a dispositional hearing, the court
ordered the mother to maintain suitable housing and employment, participate
consistently in mental-health services, and cooperate with HHS and providers.
The mother had been living at a shelter in Dubuque since October 2023. In
March, the mother moved out of the shelter and into a friend’s home in Eldora,
closer to the mother’s family. While staying with her friend, the mother refused to
allow HHS or other service providers to inspect the house. The mother attempted
to secure income-based housing, but the application required proof of income, and
she didn’t resume working until June. In June, the mother moved to the child’s
maternal great grandmother’s house, which HHS had previously determined was
unsafe for children. The day before the termination hearing, the child’s maternal
grandmother moved into a new house and suggested the mother could stay there
until her income-based housing application was approved.
As to the mother’s mental health, she participated in an intake appointment
and a single therapy session before termination. She also never progressed
beyond supervised visits with the child. HHS, service providers, and the GAL all
expressed concerns with the mother’s ability to independently care for an infant as
of trial or in the near future. The GAL questioned the mother’s “ability to internalize
the parenting skills needed to care for an infant, especially one with chronic
respiratory issues, without constant supervision and additional assistance.” During
visits, HHS required the mother to change into fresh clothes and wash her face 4
and hands before interacting with the child to limit the child’s exposure to cigarette
smoke. In April, during a supervised visit, the child had to be rushed to the
emergency room after she started coughing, drooling, and turning red in reaction
to residual cigarette smoke on the mother. The mother panicked and the
grandmother and foster parents had to intervene to suggest medical intervention.
The child has lived with the same foster family since leaving the NICU. And
the child is well adjusted and bonded to the foster family. The foster parents take
excellent care of the child and are open to adoption.
The county attorney, HHS, and the GAL recommended termination of
parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (h). The mother appeals, and we review de
novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).
Best Interests. Because the mother does not contest the statutory grounds
for termination, we consider first whether termination is in the child’s best interests.
See, e.g., In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). In assessing best interests,
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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).
The mother’s petition on appeal conflates best interests with the permissive bond
exception at section 232.116(3)(c). See, e.g., In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 534–35
(Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc) (“Conflating the [best-interests] and [permissive-
exception] steps based on a claimed bond with the child is not uncommon.”). To
the extent she urges the bond is independently relevant to her best-interests
argument, we are not persuaded it shifts the calculus. We, like the juvenile court, 5
find termination is in the child’s best interests. The child’s respiratory system is so
compromised that the child had to be admitted to the emergency room after being
aggravated by the residual smoke on the mother’s clothes and hair during a visit.
Yet the mother has not quit—or even cut back on—smoking cigarettes despite
HHS discussing the safety risk to the child with her. And the mother seemed
unable to care for the child during this medical emergency without direction from
others. In contrast, neither we nor the juvenile court have any concerns about the
foster parents providing for the child’s medical needs.
Also, the mother’s housing situation remained unstable. Before moving in
with the great grandmother, the mother was living temporarily with a friend and
refused to allow HHS entry to inspect the home for safety concerns. And the great
grandmother’s house was already deemed unsafe for children. The GAL also
questioned the mother’s ability to care for a chronically ill child, given her poor
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-1404 Filed December 17, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF A.C., Minor Child,
C.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child.
AFFIRMED.
Myia E. Steines of Clemens, Walters, Conlon, Runde & Hiatt, L.L.P.,
Dubuque, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kristy L. Hefel, State Public Defender, Dubuque, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor child.
Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and
Langhholz, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to a child born in 2024.
Because the father does not appeal, we focus almost entirely on facts relating to
the mother and the child. We reject the mother’s best-interests claim, request for
additional time, and permissive-exception claim.
Background Facts and Proceedings. To quickly sum up the mother’s
four previous termination cases, the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) first became involved with this family in April 2021 after the father
strangled the mother in the presence of two of the child’s older siblings. Between
December 2022 and September 2023, all four of the child’s older siblings were
removed and adjudicated as children in need of assistance (CINAs) after HHS
found numerous child abuse allegations credible. In January 2025, the juvenile
court terminated the parents’ rights to older siblings under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2025). The mother appealed, and a panel of this
court affirmed. In re T.K., No. 25-0424, 2025 WL 1704330, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App.
June 18, 2025).
In November 2024, the child at issue here was born. The child was born
with a hole in her heart and a chronic respiratory condition, and she spent a month
in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Despite notice and opportunity, the
mother didn’t attend any of the child’s follow-up medical appointments. Medical
personnel explained to the HHS worker who attended the appointments that the
child’s condition is aggravated by cigarette smoke. The mother smoked cigarettes
through termination, but she disputed whether HHS told her to quit smoking. 3
On the same day the child was born, the juvenile court ordered temporary
removal under Iowa Code section 232.95. The court also appointed a guardian ad
litem (GAL). HHS placed the child in foster care. And in early 2025, the juvenile
court also adjudicated the child as CINA. After a dispositional hearing, the court
ordered the mother to maintain suitable housing and employment, participate
consistently in mental-health services, and cooperate with HHS and providers.
The mother had been living at a shelter in Dubuque since October 2023. In
March, the mother moved out of the shelter and into a friend’s home in Eldora,
closer to the mother’s family. While staying with her friend, the mother refused to
allow HHS or other service providers to inspect the house. The mother attempted
to secure income-based housing, but the application required proof of income, and
she didn’t resume working until June. In June, the mother moved to the child’s
maternal great grandmother’s house, which HHS had previously determined was
unsafe for children. The day before the termination hearing, the child’s maternal
grandmother moved into a new house and suggested the mother could stay there
until her income-based housing application was approved.
As to the mother’s mental health, she participated in an intake appointment
and a single therapy session before termination. She also never progressed
beyond supervised visits with the child. HHS, service providers, and the GAL all
expressed concerns with the mother’s ability to independently care for an infant as
of trial or in the near future. The GAL questioned the mother’s “ability to internalize
the parenting skills needed to care for an infant, especially one with chronic
respiratory issues, without constant supervision and additional assistance.” During
visits, HHS required the mother to change into fresh clothes and wash her face 4
and hands before interacting with the child to limit the child’s exposure to cigarette
smoke. In April, during a supervised visit, the child had to be rushed to the
emergency room after she started coughing, drooling, and turning red in reaction
to residual cigarette smoke on the mother. The mother panicked and the
grandmother and foster parents had to intervene to suggest medical intervention.
The child has lived with the same foster family since leaving the NICU. And
the child is well adjusted and bonded to the foster family. The foster parents take
excellent care of the child and are open to adoption.
The county attorney, HHS, and the GAL recommended termination of
parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (h). The mother appeals, and we review de
novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).
Best Interests. Because the mother does not contest the statutory grounds
for termination, we consider first whether termination is in the child’s best interests.
See, e.g., In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). In assessing best interests,
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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).
The mother’s petition on appeal conflates best interests with the permissive bond
exception at section 232.116(3)(c). See, e.g., In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 534–35
(Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc) (“Conflating the [best-interests] and [permissive-
exception] steps based on a claimed bond with the child is not uncommon.”). To
the extent she urges the bond is independently relevant to her best-interests
argument, we are not persuaded it shifts the calculus. We, like the juvenile court, 5
find termination is in the child’s best interests. The child’s respiratory system is so
compromised that the child had to be admitted to the emergency room after being
aggravated by the residual smoke on the mother’s clothes and hair during a visit.
Yet the mother has not quit—or even cut back on—smoking cigarettes despite
HHS discussing the safety risk to the child with her. And the mother seemed
unable to care for the child during this medical emergency without direction from
others. In contrast, neither we nor the juvenile court have any concerns about the
foster parents providing for the child’s medical needs.
Also, the mother’s housing situation remained unstable. Before moving in
with the great grandmother, the mother was living temporarily with a friend and
refused to allow HHS entry to inspect the home for safety concerns. And the great
grandmother’s house was already deemed unsafe for children. The GAL also
questioned the mother’s ability to care for a chronically ill child, given her poor
parenting skills and failure to attend the child’s medical appointments. Meanwhile,
the child is well-integrated into the foster parents’ home, and they understand and
address her medical needs. Termination is in the child’s best interest.
Bond Exception. The permissive bond exception permits the court to
decline termination if “termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due
to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The
mother bore the burden to prove this exception by clear and convincing evidence.
In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475–76 (Iowa 2018). And error preservation requires
a court to rule on a claim before we can decide it on appeal. E.g., Meier v.
Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 539 (Iowa 2002). Here, there was a passing mention
of a bond at trial, but no argument or ruling on this issue, so no preserved error for 6
us to review. And even if error had been preserved, we wouldn’t thwart termination
because of the stability and safety afforded the child by termination and adoption
given this child’s unique medical needs and the mother’s unwillingness to change
her behavior to address them. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c).
Six-Month Extension. The main thrust of the mother’s argument is that
the juvenile court erred by declining to grant a six-month extension of time for her
to work toward reunification. We assume without deciding that the mother
adequately preserved this issue. She frames her move to Eldora in March 2025
as forcing her to reset case expectations and asserts that, if given an extension,
she would continue to be compliant and cooperative with HHS and service
providers. But the mother was not adequately cooperating with HHS after the
move. She refused to allow HHS to inspect her housing in Eldora, and she only
attended a single therapy session for more than eight months. She also never quit
smoking despite the child’s respiratory condition. HHS, the GAL, and a provider
reported concerns with the mother’s ability to independently care for an infant
despite years of HHS involvement. The mother has not moved beyond supervised
visits or made the necessary case progression. Cf. In re L.H., 13 N.W.3d 627, 629
(Iowa Ct. App. 2024) (noting the parent “never progressed beyond fully-supervised
visits, which also prevented an immediate return of custody.”). On these facts, we
see no basis on which the court could have found the need for removal would no
longer exist after six months to justify an extension. See Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b).
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.