In the Interest of A.M., Minor Child

Court of Appeals of Iowa·Decided April 23, 2025·No. 25-0138·Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0138 Filed April 23, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., Minor Child,

T.H., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner,

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.

AFFIRMED.

Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, PC, Cedar Rapids, for appellant

mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Kristin L. Denniger, Mount Vernon, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and

Buller, JJ. 2

BADDING, Judge.

In its ruling terminating the mother’s parental rights to her daughter under

Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023), the juvenile court stated it was “absolutely

certain” of two things: “First, [the mother] loves her daughter very much. Second,

[the mother] is in an incredibly abusive relationship . . . and she is in incredible

danger.” Because of that dangerous situation, the court found the child could not

be safely returned to her mother’s custody. The mother appeals, challenging the

statutory ground for termination and the court’s failure to apply the permissive

parent-child bond exception. She alternatively requests more time for

reunification. We affirm upon our de novo review of the record. See In re L.B.,

970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022).

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This child welfare proceeding began in March 2022 when the Iowa

Department of Health and Human Services received a report that the mother and

her boyfriend, Cordell, were “using ecstasy, cocaine, and unknown pills in the

home where the children reside.” During its investigation into the report, the

department learned that the mother’s two children—A.M., who was born in 2018,

and her younger sibling—had been living with their maternal great-grandmother

since December 2021.1 The great-grandmother told a child protective worker that

she could not keep caring for the children on her own, but she was worried about

them going back to the mother because her relationship with Cordell was abusive.

1 A.M. and her sister have different fathers. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of A.M.’s father, and he did not appeal. The younger child was placed in her father’s custody, and her case was closed through a bridge order. See Iowa Code § 232.103A(1). She is not at issue in this appeal. 3

The juvenile court adjudicated A.M. as a child in need of assistance and

removed her from her mother’s custody in April 2022. The mother did not attend

the adjudicatory hearing, later telling a case manager from the department that

Cordell had pushed her down the stairs to keep her from leaving. The mother

obtained a protective order against Cordell and began participating in services,

including individual therapy, domestic violence counseling, and the parent-partner

program. She also provided a negative drug screen.

The mother continued to do well over the summer. She obtained full-time

employment and enrolled in college classes while maintaining her housing,

therapy, and other services. Because of these positive steps, the mother began

semi-supervised visitation with the children in August, despite some rumblings that

the mother was with Cordell when he assaulted a family member in May. The

mother maintained that her relationship with Cordell was over and worked on a

safety plan with her domestic violence advocate. But in December, the mother

disclosed that she was pregnant with Cordell’s child. She gave birth to a son later

that month.

In January 2023, the department started a trial home placement with the

mother. She stopped participating in services over the next few months—blaming

her new job, scheduling issues with the providers, and the children’s needs—but

she re-engaged in April. The mother’s positive progress faltered in May when a

tragedy struck the family: the accidental death of the mother’s infant in his sleep.

The department expanded services for the mother in the wake of that loss, making

sure someone was in the home every day to help her cope. 4

But less than a week after the infant’s death, the department found out that

the mother had recently taken A.M. to Illinois to meet the child’s father. The mother

had been in an abusive relationship with the father, and there was a no-contact

order in place between them. The department was also concerned because the

father had not participated in the case, and his criminal history included convictions

for controlled substances and domestic abuse assault against the mother and a

previous girlfriend. Despite the department’s concerns about this clandestine

meeting, it implemented family preservation services to maintain the children in the

mother’s home. Those services were stopped in mid-May when the department

learned that the mother had been speaking with Cordell for the past year while he

was in prison.2 The department ended the trial home placement and placed the

children with the father of A.M.’s younger sister.

Over the next several months, the mother made some outward progress.

She completed a psychological evaluation, attended therapy, participated in

parenting classes, visited the children, and provided negative drug screens for the

department. She also created a new safety plan and extended her no-contact

order with Cordell, who was scheduled to be released from prison in January 2024.

But the department was concerned about the mother’s mental health, noting that

she displayed “very little patience or impulse control . . . when she is frustrated or

angry.” The mother also had a “very contentious relationship” with the father of

A.M.’s younger sister and was observed pressuring the children to report that he

abused them, resulting in multiple unconfirmed assessments. Given the mother’s

2 The record does not state when Cordell went to prison or the convictions that led

to his imprisonment. 5

history of domestically-violent relationships, and her tendency to avoid “taking

complete accountability for her actions,” the department was concerned she would

“continue making detrimental choices for the safety and welfare of her children.”

Because of these concerns, the department and the guardian ad litem

recommended changing the permanency goal for A.M. to termination of parental

rights.

So, in December 2023, the State proceeded with a petition to terminate the

mother and father’s parental rights to A.M. Cordell was released from prison the

next month and almost immediately contacted the father of A.M.’s sibling,

threatening: “I got your address and everything I’m coming . . . fill your crib up with

pistols because . . . you gunna need it.” The department suspected that the

mother gave Cordell the father’s contact information. The mother, however,

maintained that her last contact with Cordell was shortly after their child died.

Because the mother had complied “with the expectations laid out for her” and was

cooperating with the department, the case manager stated in a February 2024

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI