In the Interest of A.N. and A.D., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-1123
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-1123 Filed September 17, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N. and A.D., Minor Children,

A.D., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, Judge.

A mother appeals a permanency review order transferring guardianship of

her two children to their paternal grandmother. AFFIRMED.

Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, for appellant

mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

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

Langholz, JJ. 2

BADDING, Judge.

This appeal concerns two of the mother’s children—A.N., born in 2020 and

A.D., born in 2021—who have been involved with the Iowa Department of Health

and Human Services for most of their young lives. The juvenile court closed their

prolonged child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding by transferring guardianship to

the paternal grandmother. In doing so, the court found that despite the mother’s

ability to care for her children, she had a history of choosing partners “who do not

have that ability, and who hurt her children.”1 (Emphasis omitted.) The mother

appeals, claiming the court erred in finding that the children could not be returned

to her home and that placement with the grandmother was in their best interests.

Following our de novo review of the record, we affirm the court’s permanency

decision under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(d)(2) and (4) (2025).

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This family came to the department’s attention in November 2021 on a

report that the mother was using drugs in the presence of her two children, A.N.

and A.D. During the investigation, seven-month-old A.D. was found unresponsive

at the mother’s home and transported to the hospital. Medical professionals

determined her injuries were non-accidental and consistent with abusive head

trauma. The mother was unable to explain the injuries, as the child had been in

the care of the mother’s then-girlfriend when they occurred. While at the hospital,

1 Together, the mother and her spouse have eight children. The spouse entered the marriage with four children, and the mother brought two children of her own. During the marriage, each parent had one child. At the time of these proceedings, the two children born during the marriage were at the adjudication stage, while the remaining six children were at the permanency stage. This appeal concerns only the mother’s two children born before the marriage. Their father does not appeal. 3

A.D. tested positive for THC. The mother admitted that she used marijuana but

denied using any other substances. There were also unexplained injuries to

A.N.—an adult-sized bite mark on his thigh and large bruising on his back. The

children were removed from the mother’s custody and placed with their father.

Less than a month later, A.N. tested positive for methamphetamine and

THC. The father was tested soon after and was also positive for both substances.

As a result, the children were removed from his custody and placed with their

paternal grandmother under the department’s supervision. The children were

adjudicated in need of the court’s assistance in March 2022.

After her children’s removal, the mother consistently engaged in court-

ordered services, though she still had contact with the girlfriend who was criminally

charged with injuring A.D. But by the permanency hearing in May 2023, the mother

had ended that relationship and made “measurable efforts” to reunify with her

children. She completed treatment for substance use, provided clean drug tests,

and regularly attended mental health therapy. She was also employed full-time

and had stable housing. And she was “absolutely amazing” with her children

during their visits, according to the guardian ad litem. With that progress, the

juvenile court granted the mother a six-month extension to continue working

towards reunification.

The mother continued to do well during the extension, although she started

a new relationship that she kept secret from the professionals involved with her

case. In October—just as the children were transitioning back into her home—the

mother got married and gave birth to another child. The mother’s new spouse was

also involved in a juvenile court proceeding for her four children, and she was 4

pregnant with a child of her own. Despite these developments, the court returned

custody of A.N. and A.D. to the mother in November but kept the case open to

provide the family with continued support “[d]ue to all the new dynamics in the

home.”

In January 2024, the spouse gave birth to another child, bringing the

number of children in the home to eight. One month later, A.N. suffered second-

degree burns to his feet after being left unsupervised and turning on the hot water

in the bathtub. In April, during an argument between the spouse and the mother,

one of them threw a fan that scratched a child standing nearby, resulting in the

removal of the spouse’s four older children and child-endangerment charges for

both parties. The mother and her spouse were evicted from their apartment

because of the number of calls to the police, but they quickly secured a new

residence. The couple also started marriage counseling.

Three months later, in July, the department received a report alleging the

spouse had physically abused A.D., resulting in facial bruising. A.N. and A.D. were

again removed from the mother’s custody and placed with their paternal

grandmother, where they have since remained. A child protective worker

concluded the physical abuse report was founded, but a perpetrator was not

identified. The mother and spouse claimed the bruising was from A.D. falling out

of a chair. The children initially confirmed this account. But during the forensic

interviews, A.N. disclosed that the spouse hits him “when he makes bad

decisions.” And when A.D. was being examined by a doctor, she reported that she

was hit because she had peed on herself. The doctor confirmed that A.D.’s

injuries—which included two black eyes, a knot and bruise on her forehead, and a 5

bruise on the left side of her face—were consistent with A.D.’s report and non-

accidental.

After the children were removed, the department began providing a weekly

visit for the couple with all eight of their children. These visits were chaotic and

caused A.N. and A.D. to have behavior problems that spilled over into their school,

daycare, and grandmother’s home. A.N. told the workers who were supervising

the visits that he did not want to attend them and that he remembered when the

mother’s spouse “would hit him and his sister and it makes him angry.” The mother

maintained the children were being coached by the department in their feelings

towards her spouse, and she downplayed the safety concerns that workers

observed at the visits. In a November report, the department recommended

changing the permanency goal from reunification with the mother to a guardianship

with the paternal grandmother.

At a permanency review hearing that lasted four days over a five-month

period, the mother continued to insist that she and her spouse could care for all

eight children and requested that A.N. and A.D. be returned to her custody. The

juvenile court disagreed and transferred guardianship of the two children to the

paternal grandmother. The mother appeals.

II. Standard of Review

Child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings are reviewed de novo. In re D.M.,

965 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Iowa 2021). “In doing so, we give the juvenile court’s factual

findings weight, but we are not bound by them. Our paramount consideration is

protecting the child’s best interests.” Id. (cleaned up). 6

III. Analysis

During a permanency review hearing, the juvenile court “shall consider the

child’s need for a secure and permanent placement in light of any permanency

plan or evidence submitted to the court and the reasonable efforts made

concerning the child.” Iowa Code § 232.104(1)(c). The permanency options

available to the court after the hearing include an order “to return the child to the

child’s home,” an extension of time to work towards reunification, an order directing

the State to initiate termination proceedings, or an order transferring “guardianship

and custody of the child to an adult relative.” Id. § 232.104(2)(a)–(d).

If the juvenile court selects the last option, as it did here, the court must find

convincing evidence that all the following apply:

a. A termination of the parent-child relationship would not be in the best interest of the child. b. Services were offered to the child’s family to correct the situation which led to the child’s removal from the home. c. The child cannot be returned to the child’s home.

Id. § 232.104(4). On the last element, our supreme court has stated that “[w]hen

the evidence shows the child’s return will not produce harm, the child is to be

reunited with the custodial parent.” D.M., 965 N.W.2d at 480 (cleaned up).

In deciding to transfer guardianship of the children to the paternal

grandmother, the juvenile court found that “despite the ability to care for her

children, [the mother] has a history of choosing paramours who do not have that

ability, and who hurt her children.” The court concluded

that the children cannot return home to [the mother] if [her spouse] is there. While [the mother] can raise these children on her own, the children are not safe if [the spouse] is there. The children cannot be returned to [the mother] because [she] has not shown she can keep 7

the children safe from the people she chooses to have around her children.

We agree.

This is an undeniably difficult situation. The record reflects that the mother

and children share a loving bond. It is also evident that the mother can meet the

children’s needs when parenting them alone. However, the children’s safety is

compromised when the mother’s care is expanded to a household that includes

her spouse and six other children. In the eight months after the children were

returned to the mother’s custody, there were several concerning incidents: A.N.

suffered second-degree burns to his feet due to lack of supervision; there was a

domestic dispute between the mother and spouse that resulted in injury to a child;

and there were multiple unexplained injuries to the children, including A.D. who

sustained significant facial bruising with two black eyes. While minor injuries can

be expected with young children, the frequency and severity of the harm reported

here raises serious concerns.

Despite this, the mother disputes the court’s finding that the children could

not be returned to her home. She contends there is no evidence that A.D. was

ever fearful of her spouse and no evidence that A.N. is currently afraid. The record,

however, contains multiple indications that the children are still apprehensive about

the spouse and the blended family. For instance, while A.N. has not explicitly

expressed fear of the spouse since being placed with the grandmother, he still

asks whether the spouse will be present at visits. The mother interprets this as

evidence that he wants to see the spouse, but A.N.’s guardian ad litem stated that

he asks about the spouse “because he is anxious and afraid.” 8

Even without relying on the children’s fear of the spouse, there is convincing

evidence that the children have endured abuse that the mother refuses to

acknowledge. See In re J.S., 470 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (noting that

a parent’s refusal to accept responsibility for prior abuse is relevant in evaluating

the parent’s future ability to safely parent). Though the physical abuse allegations

were not confirmed as to a specific perpetrator, the harm itself was well

documented. The court was not required to determine with certainty that the

spouse was the source of the abuse to conclude the environment is unsafe. The

injuries occurred in the home, while the mother and her spouse were present—this

alone supports the finding that returning the children would not be safe or in their

best interests.

A.N. has also described being hit by the other children during group visits.

Although professionals involved with the children describe them as “calm and

sweet” in other settings, their behavior changes during visits with the six other

children and the spouse. During those visits, “they’re aggressive and [A.N.] kind

of shuts down.” The social worker’s description of the group visits paints a chaotic

picture of the children: “They don’t listen to the parents, they hit each other, they

cuss, they’re all over the place, they’re throwing things, they’re climbing on things.

I see the parents scrambling, trying to keep it under control.” When offered

direction on parenting techniques, the mother and spouse “don’t respond well to

feedback.”

In contrast, A.N. and A.D. are well-behaved and genuinely enjoy the visits

when they are alone with their mother. This contrast underscores the core

concern. While the mother can parent these two children individually, the 9

environment created by her choices has proven to be unstable and damaging to

the children’s physical and emotional health. See In re T.W., No. 23-0720, 2023

WL 5092919, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023) (affirming a permanency order

placing a child in the father’s sole legal custody where the evidence showed

“returning the child to the mother is likely to harm the child’s progress in emotional

and behavioral regulation”). The children were previously removed from the

mother’s custody because of a serious non-accidental injury to A.D., returned, and

removed again within just eight months because A.D. was injured again.

Following placement with their grandmother, the children’s teacher and

principal observed a marked improvement in their school attendance and a

decrease in previously observed inappropriate behaviors. By all accounts, the

children are doing well with their grandmother. They now have a safe and stable

home environment with consistent supervision. It would be against the children’s

best interests to prolong uncertainty while waiting to see whether the mother and

spouse’s household might one day become a safe environment. See In re L.L.,

459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990) (“Children simply cannot wait for responsible

parenting. Parenting cannot be turned off and on like a spigot. It must be constant,

responsible, and reliable.”).

For these reasons, we find that the juvenile court’s permanency decision to

transfer guardianship to the paternal grandmother is supported by convincing

evidence and in the children’s best interests. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.