IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-0746 Filed August 9, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF C.A., C.A., M.A., and L.N., Minor Children,
S.T., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Carrie K. Bryner,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for
appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Rebecca Williams, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children,
arguing the State did not prove the statutory elements of termination, the State did
not provide reasonable efforts at reunification, she should receive an extension of
time to work toward reunification, and a permissive exception should preclude
termination. We reject each argument and affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
The mother’s four children—C.A. (born 2012), C.A. (born 2013), M.A. (born
2015), and L.N. (born 2016)—came to the attention of the Iowa Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2021, after the agency received
reports that the mother and her paramour were using methamphetamine in the
presence of the children. The mother initially refused to allow her children to be
drug tested but, after the children were removed from the mother in November
2021, three of the children tested positive for methamphetamine. All of the children
were initially placed with their maternal grandmother, but one was later moved to
foster care due to behavioral issues.
The fathers of the children were rarely involved with reunification services
and almost never visited their children throughout the lifetime of the case. The
mother engaged with some services offered but did not make meaningful progress
with any of them. The mother missed almost every drug test offered since removal,
she never meaningfully engaged in substance-abuse treatment, and she admitted
to using methamphetamine and marijuana up to the termination hearing.
HHS also offered the mother visits with her children, but she rarely utilized
them, visiting her children 24 out of a possible 112 times. Social workers tried to 3
facilitate visits for the mother, working around her schedule and offering to give her
gas cards or drive her, but the mother refused to cooperate or take advantage of
these opportunities.
This lack of cooperation with HHS extended past visits with the children, as
the mother also refused to provide updates on housing and employment, which
led HHS to believe the mother was homeless. Only during the termination hearing
did the mother explain that she was living with a paramour not approved by the
agency to be around the children.
Based on this lack of progress from any parent, the State petitioned to
terminate the mother’s and fathers’ parental rights in October 2022, which then
proceeded to hearing in January 2023. In April 2023, the juvenile court issued an
order terminating the parents’ rights. Only the mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re
D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). “[W]e may affirm the juvenile court’s
termination order on any ground that we find supported by clear and convincing
evidence.” Id.
III. Discussion
On appeal, the mother argues the State did not prove the statutory elements
of termination, the State did not provide reasonable efforts at reunification, she
should have received an extension of time to work toward reunification, and a
permissive exception should preclude termination. We reject all of these
arguments. 4
The mother first contests whether the State proved the statutory elements
of termination, namely whether the State demonstrated that her children could not
be safely returned to her at the time of the termination hearing. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(f) (2022). On review, we find they could not be safely returned.
Throughout the case, the mother never meaningfully addressed her drug
addictions and failed to make significant progress at any treatment program she
entered. We presume her numerous no-shows for testing would have returned
positive results, and the mother admitted to using methamphetamine and
marijuana up until the termination hearing. See In re R.A., No. 21-0746, 2021
WL 4891011, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2021) (“[The parent] missed several
drug tests over the life of this case. We presume these missed tests would have
been positive for illegal substances.”). These unrelenting drug addictions, which
persisted through the time of termination, are enough to show the children could
not be safely returned to their mother. See State v. Petithory, 702 N.W.2d 854,
859 (Iowa 2005) (“What parent among us would entrust a three-year old to a meth
addict? No right thinking parent would do so, because of the dangers and
hazards.”).
In addition to these issues with controlled substances, the mother was
unable to secure stable housing, she lived with a paramour not approved to be
around her children, and she never showed a consistent interest in being with her
children. These factors further convince us that the children could not be safely
returned at the time of the termination hearing.
Second, the mother complains that HHS failed to provide reasonable efforts
to reunify her with her children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000); see 5
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f). We find this allegation unfounded. Throughout the
proceedings, HHS provided the mother with assistance to visits, mental-health
services, and substance-abuse services. HHS provided reasonable efforts, and
we affirm the juvenile court on this issue.
Third, the mother requests a six-month extension of time to work toward
reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We reject this request. The mother
showed little lasting improvement over the course of proceedings, and her past
conduct suggests that her situation would not meaningfully change over an
additional six months. See In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021) (“[T]he
juvenile court may deny termination and give the parent an additional six months
for reunification only if the need for removal ‘will no longer exist at the end of
additional six-month period.’” (quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b))); In re C.K., 558
N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997) (“[T]he parents’ past performance … may indicate
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-0746 Filed August 9, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF C.A., C.A., M.A., and L.N., Minor Children,
S.T., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Carrie K. Bryner,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for
appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Rebecca Williams, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children,
arguing the State did not prove the statutory elements of termination, the State did
not provide reasonable efforts at reunification, she should receive an extension of
time to work toward reunification, and a permissive exception should preclude
termination. We reject each argument and affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
The mother’s four children—C.A. (born 2012), C.A. (born 2013), M.A. (born
2015), and L.N. (born 2016)—came to the attention of the Iowa Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2021, after the agency received
reports that the mother and her paramour were using methamphetamine in the
presence of the children. The mother initially refused to allow her children to be
drug tested but, after the children were removed from the mother in November
2021, three of the children tested positive for methamphetamine. All of the children
were initially placed with their maternal grandmother, but one was later moved to
foster care due to behavioral issues.
The fathers of the children were rarely involved with reunification services
and almost never visited their children throughout the lifetime of the case. The
mother engaged with some services offered but did not make meaningful progress
with any of them. The mother missed almost every drug test offered since removal,
she never meaningfully engaged in substance-abuse treatment, and she admitted
to using methamphetamine and marijuana up to the termination hearing.
HHS also offered the mother visits with her children, but she rarely utilized
them, visiting her children 24 out of a possible 112 times. Social workers tried to 3
facilitate visits for the mother, working around her schedule and offering to give her
gas cards or drive her, but the mother refused to cooperate or take advantage of
these opportunities.
This lack of cooperation with HHS extended past visits with the children, as
the mother also refused to provide updates on housing and employment, which
led HHS to believe the mother was homeless. Only during the termination hearing
did the mother explain that she was living with a paramour not approved by the
agency to be around the children.
Based on this lack of progress from any parent, the State petitioned to
terminate the mother’s and fathers’ parental rights in October 2022, which then
proceeded to hearing in January 2023. In April 2023, the juvenile court issued an
order terminating the parents’ rights. Only the mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re
D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). “[W]e may affirm the juvenile court’s
termination order on any ground that we find supported by clear and convincing
evidence.” Id.
III. Discussion
On appeal, the mother argues the State did not prove the statutory elements
of termination, the State did not provide reasonable efforts at reunification, she
should have received an extension of time to work toward reunification, and a
permissive exception should preclude termination. We reject all of these
arguments. 4
The mother first contests whether the State proved the statutory elements
of termination, namely whether the State demonstrated that her children could not
be safely returned to her at the time of the termination hearing. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(f) (2022). On review, we find they could not be safely returned.
Throughout the case, the mother never meaningfully addressed her drug
addictions and failed to make significant progress at any treatment program she
entered. We presume her numerous no-shows for testing would have returned
positive results, and the mother admitted to using methamphetamine and
marijuana up until the termination hearing. See In re R.A., No. 21-0746, 2021
WL 4891011, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2021) (“[The parent] missed several
drug tests over the life of this case. We presume these missed tests would have
been positive for illegal substances.”). These unrelenting drug addictions, which
persisted through the time of termination, are enough to show the children could
not be safely returned to their mother. See State v. Petithory, 702 N.W.2d 854,
859 (Iowa 2005) (“What parent among us would entrust a three-year old to a meth
addict? No right thinking parent would do so, because of the dangers and
hazards.”).
In addition to these issues with controlled substances, the mother was
unable to secure stable housing, she lived with a paramour not approved to be
around her children, and she never showed a consistent interest in being with her
children. These factors further convince us that the children could not be safely
returned at the time of the termination hearing.
Second, the mother complains that HHS failed to provide reasonable efforts
to reunify her with her children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000); see 5
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f). We find this allegation unfounded. Throughout the
proceedings, HHS provided the mother with assistance to visits, mental-health
services, and substance-abuse services. HHS provided reasonable efforts, and
we affirm the juvenile court on this issue.
Third, the mother requests a six-month extension of time to work toward
reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We reject this request. The mother
showed little lasting improvement over the course of proceedings, and her past
conduct suggests that her situation would not meaningfully change over an
additional six months. See In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021) (“[T]he
juvenile court may deny termination and give the parent an additional six months
for reunification only if the need for removal ‘will no longer exist at the end of
additional six-month period.’” (quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b))); In re C.K., 558
N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997) (“[T]he parents’ past performance … may indicate
the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future.”). The children
could not be returned to their mother at the time of the termination hearing, and we
are convinced they could not be returned to their mother within six months either.
Last, we decline to apply any permissive exceptions to termination. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(3). The mother bears the burden to prove the application of
any exception. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). She argues for the
application of an exception based on a relative’s legal custody of the children and
based on the closeness of the parent-child relationship. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(3)(a), (c). We reject both arguments. The first requested exception is
inapplicable, as HHS held legal custody of the children at termination. In re
A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 170 (Iowa 2021) (“[T]his exception can come into play only 6
when a relative has ‘legal custody.’” (citing Iowa Code 232.116(3)(a))). The
mother’s second argument does not persuade us either. When determining
whether to apply this exception, “our consideration must center on whether the
child[ren] will be disadvantaged by termination, and whether the disadvantage
overcomes [the parent’s] inability to provide for [the children’s] developing needs.”
D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 709. While the mother has a bond with her children, the
children have been placed in safe and stable environments where they can mature
and grow, and these benefits of safety, stability, and growth far outweigh the
potential disadvantages of termination. We affirm the termination of parental
rights.
AFFIRMED.