In the Interest of A.L. and E.L., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: October 2, 2024
• Docket: 24-0693
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0693 Filed October 2, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L. and E.L., Minor Children,

S.L., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block,

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Andrea M. Flanagan and Sandra C. Kromminga of Flanagan Law Group,

PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ. 2

BADDING, Judge.

A mother stuck in a cycle of domestic violence with the father of her two

children, born in 2009 and 2013, appeals the termination of her parental rights

under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023).1 She challenges the juvenile

court’s findings that the children cannot be returned to her custody because of her

toxic relationship with the father and that termination is in their best interests. We

affirm on our de novo review of the record.2

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Close to twenty years ago, the mother’s parental rights to her two oldest

children were terminated because her “pattern and history of choices with men

who have criminal and substance abuse issues will only continue to place the

children at risk.” One of those men was the father of the two children at issue here.

The mother married him in 2008, starting the family on what the juvenile court

termed as a “dysfunctional rollercoaster ride.”

A low point of that ride was in July 2020, when the Iowa Department of

Health and Human Services received a report alleging that the father was drinking

“about a fifth of alcohol per day” and experiencing suicidal thoughts while holding

a loaded gun. The report also alleged that the parents were using

methamphetamine while caring for their children. The parents admitted the drug

use, and the father was involuntarily committed for his mental health. Once he

1 The father does not appeal. 2 In conducting this review, “[w]e are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of

fact, but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.” In re Z.K., 973 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022) (citation omitted). “Our primary concern is the best interests of the child[ren].” In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). 3

was discharged from the hospital, the department created a safety plan with the

parents that included an agreement to “not engage in domestic violent behavior in

front of the kids” and “abstain from illegal substance use.” Family preservation

services were put into place, and the parents engaged in couple’s counseling.

Yet, the next month, the father was charged with domestic abuse assault

after knocking the mother to the ground and strangling her. A criminal no-contact

order was entered but canceled at the mother’s request. The father moved back

into the family’s home and resumed counseling with the mother. But they soon

had another domestic incident, and the father “was again safety planned out of the

home.” The department case manager noted the mother “has gone back and forth

a great deal in regards to if she feels safe with him in the home or not. One minute

she will state she is fearful and the next will state she never said that and wants

him back home.” The father returned to the home again, and the cycle continued.

With the children “express[ing] fear and anxiety over the level of conflict in the

home,” the State filed petitions in January 2021 to have them adjudicated as

children in need of the court’s assistance.

A few days before the adjudicatory hearing in February, the father was

arrested and charged with another domestic abuse assault against the mother.

She quickly moved to modify, and then cancel, the resulting no-contact order. The

juvenile court granted the child-in-need-of-assistance petitions in May, and the

children remained in their parents’ custody under the department’s protective

supervision. The oldest child started participating in therapy to address his high

anxiety and nervous tics. The mother said the family situation was also causing

problems for the youngest child, who was “quite emotional at times.” An individual 4

counselor for the mother reported, “All family members are walking on egg shells.

The kids are afraid of [the father] when he yells. The kids have seen the cops

show up to their house. [The mother] seems to be in some denial about the

severity of the abuse in the house.”

Over the next few months, the parents reported one another to the police,

obtained and then dismissed civil protective orders, and missed drug testing. The

father was subject to another involuntary mental-health committal and jailed for

violating a protective order, while the mother was arrested for harassing the father.

Before the dispositional hearing in July, the oldest child told his therapist “that his

parents need to be apart and remain separated.” After that hearing, the court

continued the children in their parents’ custody but in their mother’s care with

visitation for the father. The father was released from jail at the end of August, the

protective orders were dismissed the next month, and the father was living with the

family again by October.

Before long, the parents were fighting again, culminating with an extended

incident in January 2022 that resulted in multiple calls to one of the family’s service

providers and the police. The father reported the mother “had hit and kicked him”

and broke down the back door to the house, while the mother said the father locked

her and the children out of the house, which he then “trashed.” A couple of weeks

later, the mother had a positive hair test for methamphetamine. She eventually

admitted relapsing and reported the father was using methamphetamine too. The

children were removed from their parents’ custody in February, with the

department noting, “The parents have been in crisis almost everyday due to their

unstable relationship.” 5

After the children’s removal, the parents started a slow climb back up the

rollercoaster. They obtained psychological evaluations, which resulted in a bipolar

diagnosis for the father and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder for the mother.

Both parents reengaged with individual therapy, substance-use treatment, and

couple’s counseling. Despite some bumps along the way—including positive drug

tests for the mother in March, missed drug tests for the father, and continued

arguments—the department was considering semi-supervised visits in October.

By then, the mother had completed her substance-use treatment and was engaged

in aftercare. She was regularly attending individual therapy, and the couple was

successfully discharged from marital counseling. The father had also completed

his substance-use treatment and provided negative drug tests. Parent-child

relationship assessments were completed, and family therapy was recommended.

Those sessions started in November. Because of the parents’ significant

progress, the department moved them to semi-supervised visitation. But the

children were soon reporting “that mom and dad still argue at times, and they are

worried about escalations.” Despite those reports, the department was still

prepared to transition to an unsupervised visitation plan with overnights. Before

that plan could be implemented, the parents’ relationship entered another violent

cycle. In February 2023, the mother alleged that the father had been stalking her

and that he spit in her face, hid in the house when she was making plans to move

out, and damaged the mirror on her vehicle. The children requested more

supervision at visits because of their parents’ fighting. The youngest child was

struggling in school, sleepwalking, bed-wetting, and experiencing nightmares. She

was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, along with unspecified 6

depressive disorder and anxiety. The oldest child stopped participating in extra

phone calls with his parents, parenting education sessions, and individual

counseling. And he was experiencing a dip in his grades at school. So the

department returned the parents to fully supervised visits, noting their volatile

relationship “continues to be a concern and greatly impacts the children.”

The mother obtained her own residence in March and filed for divorce from

the father. He was arrested in April for breaking into the mother’s new home and

charged with second-degree burglary. Criminal and civil no-contact orders were

issued. While the children reported feeling safe when they were with the mother,

they feared their father. The youngest child was also presenting some challenging

behaviors for the foster parents, who asked the department to find her another

home. They were willing to keep the oldest child in their home, however, and open

to adopting him. With these developments, the State petitioned to terminate the

parents’ rights in May 2023.

In July, the no-contact orders between the parents were dismissed. Less

than a week later, they were “in crisis” for several days, with the mother calling the

police for a welfare check on the father, who “was in a ‘dark place’ mentally.” Early

the next morning, the father went to the mother’s home and threatened her. Yet,

in August, the mother asked the father to drive her to a medical appointment. And

she recanted the allegations that she made against him in April.

A termination hearing was held at the end of August. The court considered

a letter from the youngest child’s therapist, which stated that termination of her

mother’s parental rights would not be in the child’s best interests. The children

also wrote letters to the court stating they wanted “to go home with [their] mom” 7

because she was “doing everything she is supposed to.” The mother echoed that

sentiment, testifying: “I know that I haven’t always made the best choices, but I

also have worked really hard. . . .” She agreed that her relationship with the father

was toxic and testified that she intended to follow through with the divorce. The

department’s case manager was skeptical, noting that despite years of counseling,

the parents are “continuously in crisis or engaging in the relationship.”

Faced with this evidence, the juvenile court found that while a statutory

ground may have been proven, “it is in the best interests of the children that the

court defer permanency” under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b). The court noted

that the mother “has actively engaged in services being offered,” “consistently

demonstrated sobriety for over the last twelve months,” and maintained suitable

housing and employment. But the court remained concerned by the parents’

relationship and the father’s “unmet mental health and substance abuse,” along

with the youngest child’s “mental and emotional well-being [and] lack of concurrent

placement.” To address some of these concerns, the court ordered that the

parents “shall not both be present during any visitation” with the children; “[n]either

parent shall engage in any acts of domestic violence”; and each was expected to

“demonstrate that the children can be returned to the care of a parent without being

subject to domestic violence.”

After this hearing, the department’s case manager found a new foster home

for the youngest child about an hour-and-a-half away from her parents and brother.

Although the parents’ visits with the child were separate, they drove there together

at least twice. The mother gave the father rides to other places, paid some of his

bills, and sometimes spent the night at his house. With this continued contact, the 8

court-appointed special advocate noted “there have been almost monthly

inappropriate interactions between the couple. . . . There are angry texts, angry

phone calls, and calls to the police.” Both parents installed cameras at their homes

and obtained new phone numbers. But they soon started contacting each other

again. And their divorce remained in limbo. The juvenile court accordingly reset

the termination hearing for April 2024.

A few weeks before that hearing, the parents had another argument, during

which they both contacted the police for help. And then, the weekend before the

hearing, the parents argued again because the mother found out the father “was

talking to another girl,” which the father said made her “pretty upset.” The

department’s case manager accordingly noted in her report, “The parents have

done little to demonstrate that they have ended their relationship; or that they are

living in separate residences.” The juvenile court agreed in its termination ruling,

finding: “Neither parent has demonstrated their ability to protect the children from

their toxic relationship. Although both parents voice the importance of protecting

their children from domestic violence, their actions and deception throughout the

juvenile court’s supervision reflect that they have no appreciation of the dangers

their relationship poses.” The mother appeals.

II. Analysis

Although we perform a three-step analysis in conducting our de novo review

of termination of parental rights, see In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010),

the mother challenges only two of those steps—whether a statutory ground for

termination is satisfied, and whether the children’s best interests are served by 9

termination. We accordingly focus on those steps.3 See id. (stating we need not

address a step the parent has not disputed).

On the statutory ground, the mother argues “[t]here is not clear and

convincing evidence that the children cannot be returned to [her] custody due to

her relationship” with the father. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4) (requiring clear

and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to parental custody “at

the present time”); In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting the

statutory language “at the present time” to mean “at the time of the termination

hearing”). She points to her engagement in services, including individual therapy,

family therapy, and couple’s counseling, as evidence that she has “ensure[d] that

the children’s well-being is not impacted by her ongoing relationship” with the

father. (Emphasis added.) But that argument says it all—despite the mother

testifying several times that her relationship with the father was over, it was not.

And it was still volatile, with the parents’ arguments continuing right up to the

weekend before the termination hearing, even after all the services provided to

them. The mother knew the children wanted to be with her “but not if I was home

with their dad.” Yet she continued her relationship with him. So while the mother

3 The mother’s petition on appeal challenges the final element in Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). We consider her argument as a challenge to the final element of the ground under which her parental rights were terminated, section 232.116(1)(f), which is essentially identical to the final element in section 232.116(1)(h). See In re J.S., No. 24-0503, 2024 WL 2842232, at *1 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 5, 2024). We do not, however, address the bond exception in section 232.116(3)(c). While the mother mentioned that exception in the supporting legal authority section for her challenge to the statutory ground for termination, “sprinkled mentions of an issue” are insufficient to raise legal claims for our consideration. In re K.P., No. 23-1661, 2024 WL 260885, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2024). 10

made progress in other areas, like her sobriety, “her domestically violent

relationship with the father was enough to prevent” safely returning the children to

her custody. In re J.K., No. 24-0561, 2024 WL 3292695, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App.

July 3, 2024); accord In re Z.B.-D., No. 08-1221, 2008 WL 4877943, at *2 (Iowa

Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2008) (finding the children couldn’t be safely returned to the

mother’s custody where the “primary if not sole impediment to reunification was”

her domestically violent relationship).

As for the children’s best interests, the mother repeats that “[s]he has

addressed her domestically abusive relationship with [the father] by meaningfully

engaging in mental health treatment.” For the same reasons discussed above, the

record shows that’s not true. Over the course of their marriage, the mother has

called the police about the father close to fifty times. Since 2019, she has filed and

dismissed four civil protective orders against him. And she has gotten at least

three criminal no-contact orders canceled, most recently in May 2023. So even

though the mother attended individual therapy weekly, she kept repeating the

same domestic violence cycle with the father. See In re D.G., No. 18-1908, 2019

WL 719174, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2019) (“We hold no crystal ball, and to

some extent, the best-interests determination must be made upon past conduct.”

(cleaned up)).

The mother also argues that her individual therapist “stated that she has no

concerns with [the mother’s] ability to be able to care” for the youngest child.

Although there were therapists involved with the family who did not recommend

terminating the mother’s parental rights, other professionals did, including the

department’s case manager, the children’s guardian ad litem, and the court- 11

appointed special advocate. The court considered all these opinions before

determining

it would be detrimental to the children’s physical, mental and emotional well-being by maintaining a parent/child relationship. The children have experienced serious emotional problems, obviously arising from the turbulence and violence within their birth family. Because of the substantial risk [the children] would confront if returned to a parent’s care, termination is in their best interests. . . . [The children] deserve the opportunity for a stable, nurturing environment, free from the threat of physical and emotional abuse, and the parents’ historical cycle of domestic violence.

We agree with the juvenile court upon our de novo review of the record. See Iowa

Code § 232.116(2) (directing the court to “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”).

For these reasons, the court’s ruling terminating the mother’s parental rights

is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.