IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1327 Filed November 8, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF D.H. and T.B., Minor Children,
D.H., Father, Appellant,
A.B., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, James B. Malloy,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental
rights to their children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Arielle M. Lipman of Lipman Law Firm, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant
father.
Kelsey Knight of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Nathan D. Hostetter of Hostetter Law Office, Ames, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Buller, JJ. 2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their children. The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights
to D.H., born in 2013, and T.B., born in 2008. The father appeals the termination
of his parental rights to D.H. We affirm on both appeals.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The children were first removed from the mother’s and father’s custody in
January 2022 and adjudicated children in need of assistance in March 2022. The
removal occurred after execution of a search warrant revealed drug paraphernalia
and drug residue in the household. The children were placed with their maternal
great-grandmother.
The mother underwent a substance-abuse evaluation in April 2022 but
failed to disclose her methamphetamine use, resulting in no recommended
treatment. She tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in March
2023. She also tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC in
May 2023, after giving birth to another child not at issue here. The mother refused
several drug tests requested by the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (department). The mother attended inpatient treatment for her substance
abuse, but she left after only four days of treatment, citing her inability to have her
children placed with her, her need to take care of her dogs, and her desire to attend
her sister’s graduation.
The department also expressed concerns about the mother’s mental health.
As a result, the mother attended online therapy for some time but discontinued her 3
appointments by the termination hearing. She has not pursued additional
treatment, despite recommendations from the department.
There were also concerns about the mother’s parental judgment. In April
2023, T.B. was hospitalized after attempting suicide. T.B.’s doctors recommended
inpatient mental-health treatment. Against medical advice, the mother discharged
T.B. and took her to her great-grandmother’s house. Her great-grandmother was
asleep, and T.B. was left unsupervised. T.B. was later returned to the hospital for
suicidal ideation.
The father underwent two substance-abuse evaluations, one in April 2022
and one in February 2023. The department recommended treatment, but the
father failed to follow through. The department requested the father submit to
seven drug tests, but he only submitted to one—he tested positive for
methamphetamine.
The father also underwent a mental-health evaluation in April 2022. The
provider diagnosed the father with a mental-health condition. The father was
unwilling to seek treatment, so no recommendations were made.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the father failed to attend
several visits with the children. During the visits he attended, the father often got
into confrontations with the mother, affecting the children’s mental well-being.
The termination hearing was held on May 26, 2023. The district court heard
testimony from the social work case manager, the social work supervisor, the
great-grandmother, and the mother. On August 14, 2023, the district court
terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(g) and (h) (2023). 4
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo the termination of parental rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d
467, 472 (Iowa 2018). We give weight to, but are not bound by, the district court’s
fact findings. Id.
III. Analysis
When reviewing termination of parental rights, we use a three-step analysis.
Id. First, we determine whether a ground for termination exists under section
232.116(1). Next, we determine whether termination is in the best interests of the
child. Iowa Code § 232.116(2). Finally, we assess whether any exceptions
preclude termination. Id. § 232.116(3).
Because neither the mother nor father contests the existence of grounds for
termination, we need not discuss the first step. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa
2010).
A. Best Interests of the Children. Under step two of our analysis, we
consider the “child[ren]’s safety, . . . the best placement for furthering the long-term
nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and . . . the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). “It is well-settled
law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a
ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will
learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re A.M.,
843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted).
The mother tested positive for methamphetamine multiple times over the
past year. It is apparent she is either unable or unwilling to address her substance-
abuse and mental-health issues, despite recommendations by the department. 5
The one time she did undergo inpatient care, she left within four days. We do not
question whether she loves her children, but love is not enough to establish a safe
and stable home, especially considering the emotional and medical issues her
children face. Termination is in the children’s best interests.
The same is true of the father. Despite repeated recommendations from
the department, the father has not sought any help for his substance-abuse or
mental-health issues, which the department characterize as “fairly severe.” He
tested positive for methamphetamine within the last year, and his failure to seek
treatment emphasizes his inability to parent these children. Given these continuing
concerns, it is impossible for the father to provide a stable and safe home for D.H.,
especially considering the child’s special needs.
B. Exceptions and Guardianship. Once the State has proven grounds for
termination exist, the burden shifts to the parent to prove a permissive exception
under section 232.116(3). A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 475–76. The mother and father
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1327 Filed November 8, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF D.H. and T.B., Minor Children,
D.H., Father, Appellant,
A.B., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, James B. Malloy,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental
rights to their children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Arielle M. Lipman of Lipman Law Firm, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant
father.
Kelsey Knight of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Nathan D. Hostetter of Hostetter Law Office, Ames, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Buller, JJ. 2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their children. The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights
to D.H., born in 2013, and T.B., born in 2008. The father appeals the termination
of his parental rights to D.H. We affirm on both appeals.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The children were first removed from the mother’s and father’s custody in
January 2022 and adjudicated children in need of assistance in March 2022. The
removal occurred after execution of a search warrant revealed drug paraphernalia
and drug residue in the household. The children were placed with their maternal
great-grandmother.
The mother underwent a substance-abuse evaluation in April 2022 but
failed to disclose her methamphetamine use, resulting in no recommended
treatment. She tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in March
2023. She also tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC in
May 2023, after giving birth to another child not at issue here. The mother refused
several drug tests requested by the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (department). The mother attended inpatient treatment for her substance
abuse, but she left after only four days of treatment, citing her inability to have her
children placed with her, her need to take care of her dogs, and her desire to attend
her sister’s graduation.
The department also expressed concerns about the mother’s mental health.
As a result, the mother attended online therapy for some time but discontinued her 3
appointments by the termination hearing. She has not pursued additional
treatment, despite recommendations from the department.
There were also concerns about the mother’s parental judgment. In April
2023, T.B. was hospitalized after attempting suicide. T.B.’s doctors recommended
inpatient mental-health treatment. Against medical advice, the mother discharged
T.B. and took her to her great-grandmother’s house. Her great-grandmother was
asleep, and T.B. was left unsupervised. T.B. was later returned to the hospital for
suicidal ideation.
The father underwent two substance-abuse evaluations, one in April 2022
and one in February 2023. The department recommended treatment, but the
father failed to follow through. The department requested the father submit to
seven drug tests, but he only submitted to one—he tested positive for
methamphetamine.
The father also underwent a mental-health evaluation in April 2022. The
provider diagnosed the father with a mental-health condition. The father was
unwilling to seek treatment, so no recommendations were made.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the father failed to attend
several visits with the children. During the visits he attended, the father often got
into confrontations with the mother, affecting the children’s mental well-being.
The termination hearing was held on May 26, 2023. The district court heard
testimony from the social work case manager, the social work supervisor, the
great-grandmother, and the mother. On August 14, 2023, the district court
terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(g) and (h) (2023). 4
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo the termination of parental rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d
467, 472 (Iowa 2018). We give weight to, but are not bound by, the district court’s
fact findings. Id.
III. Analysis
When reviewing termination of parental rights, we use a three-step analysis.
Id. First, we determine whether a ground for termination exists under section
232.116(1). Next, we determine whether termination is in the best interests of the
child. Iowa Code § 232.116(2). Finally, we assess whether any exceptions
preclude termination. Id. § 232.116(3).
Because neither the mother nor father contests the existence of grounds for
termination, we need not discuss the first step. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa
2010).
A. Best Interests of the Children. Under step two of our analysis, we
consider the “child[ren]’s safety, . . . the best placement for furthering the long-term
nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and . . . the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). “It is well-settled
law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a
ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will
learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re A.M.,
843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted).
The mother tested positive for methamphetamine multiple times over the
past year. It is apparent she is either unable or unwilling to address her substance-
abuse and mental-health issues, despite recommendations by the department. 5
The one time she did undergo inpatient care, she left within four days. We do not
question whether she loves her children, but love is not enough to establish a safe
and stable home, especially considering the emotional and medical issues her
children face. Termination is in the children’s best interests.
The same is true of the father. Despite repeated recommendations from
the department, the father has not sought any help for his substance-abuse or
mental-health issues, which the department characterize as “fairly severe.” He
tested positive for methamphetamine within the last year, and his failure to seek
treatment emphasizes his inability to parent these children. Given these continuing
concerns, it is impossible for the father to provide a stable and safe home for D.H.,
especially considering the child’s special needs.
B. Exceptions and Guardianship. Once the State has proven grounds for
termination exist, the burden shifts to the parent to prove a permissive exception
under section 232.116(3). A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 475–76. The mother and father
suggest their bonds with their children and the children’s objections should
preclude termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3). They also argue permanency
should be achieved through a guardianship with the great-grandmother.
While the children and their parents do have a bond, to apply the exception
under paragraph (c) requires clear and convincing evidence “termination would be
detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child
relationship.” Id. § 232.116(3)(c). Neither parent established their bond is so
strong as to outweigh the children’s need for permanency. See In re W.M., 957
N.W.2d 305, 315 (Iowa 2021). A stable home with reliable care is essential for
D.H.’s development—something neither parent is able to offer. While D.H.’s 6
separation from his parents will require an adjustment period, we find it is in his
best interests to terminate the mother’s and father’s parental rights. T.B. has
established self-protective qualities and will likely be able to transition to a more
stable living situation. Whatever disadvantage the children may face because of
termination is outweighed by the mother’s and father’s inability to provide for the
children.
Guardianship will not provide the stability the children need. In Iowa, “a
guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” See A.S., 906
N.W.2d at 477 (citation omitted). The great-grandmother has shown herself to be
an unsuitable guardian; she failed to ensure T.B. takes her needed medications,
allowed unsupervised visits, and failed to follow court orders and department
directives. The department has expressed concerns about her age and medical
conditions, which preclude her from driving. Stability is paramount in the
development of children, and a guardianship, which by its very nature is able to be
terminated or amended, does not provide that stability.
Finally, the mother and father argue termination is improper because the
children object. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(b). While the children have resisted
termination, they have done so out of loyalty and love for their parents. 1 We are
empathetic to the children and their wishes, but “[t]he best interests of a child is
not always what ‘the child wants.’” In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Iowa Ct. App.
2019) (citations omitted). The record establishes that a guardianship is not the
appropriate permanency option and a permissive exception should not be applied.
1 We note D.H. is only nine years old, so Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(b) is
inapplicable. 7
We affirm the termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.