IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1266 Filed November 8, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. Jr., Minor Child,
B.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Scott Strait, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Maura C. Goaley, Council Bluffs, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Eric A. Checketts of Checketts Law, PLC, Glenwood, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Gamble, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023). 2
GAMBLE, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.1 She
challenges the statutory grounds for termination, argues termination is not in the
child’s best interests, and asserts the juvenile court should have applied a
permissive exception to avoid termination of her parental rights. We affirm.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re Z.P., 948
N.W.2d 518, 522 (Iowa 2020). “We will uphold an order terminating parental rights
where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for
termination. Evidence is clear and convincing when there is no serious or
substantial doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 431 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted).
We generally use a three-step analysis to review the termination of a
parent’s rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). We
consider: (1) whether grounds for termination have been established, (2) whether
termination is in the child’s best interests, and (3) whether we should exercise any
of the permissive exceptions to termination. Id. at 472–73.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l) (2023). The mother challenges all three
grounds. However, when the juvenile court terminates under multiple statutory
grounds, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We choose to address paragraph (h).
1 The court also terminated the biological father’s parental rights. He does not appeal. 3
Section 232.116(1)(h) authorizes the court to terminate parental rights when
it finds:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance [(CINA)] pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
The mother challenges only the fourth element, asserting she “alleviated the issues
that led to adjudication,” “has a suitable home[,] and was ready, willing, and able
to welcome the child.” The mother argues she has maintained contact with the
child and maintained an important parental role with him. She and the child are
bonded. Her home is clean, has no obvious safety issues, is appropriately
furnished, and has utilities and food. She has maintained employment.
However, the mother’s failure to successfully address her substance abuse
and maintain sobriety raises serious concern about her ability to adequately care
for the child. Following our review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court
that the child could not be returned to the mother’s custody because she has not
fixed the issue leading to adjudication.
Aside from a four-month period in the second half of 2021, the family has
been involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services since the
child’s birth in summer 2020. The first CINA proceedings began after the child
tested positive for methamphetamine at birth and concluded after the mother
successfully completed substance-abuse treatment. In November 2021, the 4
department received a report the mother was actively using methamphetamine in
the home, and the child was removed. The mother later admitted she used almost
daily after relapsing in October.
The mother cycled in and out of treatment, and each time she relapsed soon
after leaving treatment. In May 2022, the child was placed in a trial home visit with
the mother at her treatment facility. She completed treatment in June, but she
relapsed and tested positive for methamphetamine in July. The child was removed
again and placed with the foster parents.
The mother was not consistent in complying with her random drug tests
and, in December 2022, she was discharged from treatment for nonattendance.
In May 2023, the mother’s ex-boyfriend—and previous purported father of the
child—filed a motion with the court alleging the mother was using
methamphetamine daily, including while caring for one of her older children. The
mother was still testing positive for methamphetamine and, at the July termination
trial, admitted to using methamphetamine the month before. She was participating
in an outpatient program, but a progress report noted her “sporadic attendance,”
“positive drug screens” despite verbalizing the consequences of drug use, and
“deceptive behaviors.”
From this record, we conclude the mother has not adequately addressed
the safety concerns stemming from methamphetamine abuse that led to the
department’s involvement. The mother has struggled to apply what she learns in
treatment and has not demonstrated an ability to sustain sobriety in the community,
with her last admitted use the month before trial. We find the child could not be 5
returned to the mother, and the State established this ground for termination of her
parental rights by clear and convincing evidence.
Next, we consider whether termination is in the child’s best interests. When
making a best-interest determination, 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.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2)). In considering the child’s best interests, the juvenile court noted the
child’s multiple placements moving between the foster parents and the mother,
and opined the child “needs and deserves permanency in his young life.” In the
child’s short life, the mother has twice completed treatment and regained care of
him after a removal, and each time she relapsed soon after and the child was
moved back to the foster family. The child is integrated into the foster family, and
they have provided the child with a safe, stable home for more than half the child’s
life. See Iowa Code § 232.116
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1266 Filed November 8, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. Jr., Minor Child,
B.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Scott Strait, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Maura C. Goaley, Council Bluffs, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Eric A. Checketts of Checketts Law, PLC, Glenwood, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Gamble, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023). 2
GAMBLE, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.1 She
challenges the statutory grounds for termination, argues termination is not in the
child’s best interests, and asserts the juvenile court should have applied a
permissive exception to avoid termination of her parental rights. We affirm.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re Z.P., 948
N.W.2d 518, 522 (Iowa 2020). “We will uphold an order terminating parental rights
where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for
termination. Evidence is clear and convincing when there is no serious or
substantial doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 431 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted).
We generally use a three-step analysis to review the termination of a
parent’s rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). We
consider: (1) whether grounds for termination have been established, (2) whether
termination is in the child’s best interests, and (3) whether we should exercise any
of the permissive exceptions to termination. Id. at 472–73.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l) (2023). The mother challenges all three
grounds. However, when the juvenile court terminates under multiple statutory
grounds, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We choose to address paragraph (h).
1 The court also terminated the biological father’s parental rights. He does not appeal. 3
Section 232.116(1)(h) authorizes the court to terminate parental rights when
it finds:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance [(CINA)] pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
The mother challenges only the fourth element, asserting she “alleviated the issues
that led to adjudication,” “has a suitable home[,] and was ready, willing, and able
to welcome the child.” The mother argues she has maintained contact with the
child and maintained an important parental role with him. She and the child are
bonded. Her home is clean, has no obvious safety issues, is appropriately
furnished, and has utilities and food. She has maintained employment.
However, the mother’s failure to successfully address her substance abuse
and maintain sobriety raises serious concern about her ability to adequately care
for the child. Following our review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court
that the child could not be returned to the mother’s custody because she has not
fixed the issue leading to adjudication.
Aside from a four-month period in the second half of 2021, the family has
been involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services since the
child’s birth in summer 2020. The first CINA proceedings began after the child
tested positive for methamphetamine at birth and concluded after the mother
successfully completed substance-abuse treatment. In November 2021, the 4
department received a report the mother was actively using methamphetamine in
the home, and the child was removed. The mother later admitted she used almost
daily after relapsing in October.
The mother cycled in and out of treatment, and each time she relapsed soon
after leaving treatment. In May 2022, the child was placed in a trial home visit with
the mother at her treatment facility. She completed treatment in June, but she
relapsed and tested positive for methamphetamine in July. The child was removed
again and placed with the foster parents.
The mother was not consistent in complying with her random drug tests
and, in December 2022, she was discharged from treatment for nonattendance.
In May 2023, the mother’s ex-boyfriend—and previous purported father of the
child—filed a motion with the court alleging the mother was using
methamphetamine daily, including while caring for one of her older children. The
mother was still testing positive for methamphetamine and, at the July termination
trial, admitted to using methamphetamine the month before. She was participating
in an outpatient program, but a progress report noted her “sporadic attendance,”
“positive drug screens” despite verbalizing the consequences of drug use, and
“deceptive behaviors.”
From this record, we conclude the mother has not adequately addressed
the safety concerns stemming from methamphetamine abuse that led to the
department’s involvement. The mother has struggled to apply what she learns in
treatment and has not demonstrated an ability to sustain sobriety in the community,
with her last admitted use the month before trial. We find the child could not be 5
returned to the mother, and the State established this ground for termination of her
parental rights by clear and convincing evidence.
Next, we consider whether termination is in the child’s best interests. When
making a best-interest determination, 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.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2)). In considering the child’s best interests, the juvenile court noted the
child’s multiple placements moving between the foster parents and the mother,
and opined the child “needs and deserves permanency in his young life.” In the
child’s short life, the mother has twice completed treatment and regained care of
him after a removal, and each time she relapsed soon after and the child was
moved back to the foster family. The child is integrated into the foster family, and
they have provided the child with a safe, stable home for more than half the child’s
life. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b) (including the child’s integration into a foster
family as a relevant factor in a best-interests analysis). We find termination of the
mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.
The mother briefly argues termination of her rights would end the bond the
child has with older siblings. First, neither of the child’s older siblings is in the
mother’s care, with one in a guardianship and the other in his father’s custody.
Second, the child’s foster family is a close relation to the custodial father of one
sibling. Third, the legislature recently took steps to address this concern and has
instructed the department to take steps “to facilitate frequent visitation or ongoing
interaction between the child and siblings.” Iowa Code § 232.108(6). The child’s 6
sibling bonds are sufficiently separated from the mother’s rights and safeguarded
that they do not affect our best-interests analysis.
Finally, the mother asserts the court should have applied an exception to
termination under section 232.116(3). The exception urged by the mother requires
“clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the
child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” Id.
§ 232.116(3)(c). “[O]ur consideration must center on whether the child will be
disadvantaged by termination, and whether the disadvantage overcomes [the
parent]’s inability to provide for [the child]’s developing needs.” In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010). While the mother and child have a bond, the child
has spent much of his life in the care of the foster family due to the mother’s
substance abuse. The mother has not established any detriment or disadvantage
outweighing the concerns based on her substance-abuse. We do not find
termination would be detrimental to the child based solely on the parent-child bond
and decline to apply the permissive exception.
AFFIRMED.