IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1720 Filed January 9, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF D.W., Minor Child,
A.J., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County,
Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son.
AFFIRMED.
Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Barbara E. Maness, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
BADDING, Judge.
A mother struggling with methamphetamine use appeals the termination of
her parental rights to her son, born in 2015, under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f) (2024). She claims that termination is not in the best
interest of the child and that her bond with the child warrants a permissive
exception. Even though the record shows the mother shared a “very strong and
loving bond” with her son, she continued to use methamphetamine after close to
two years of services. We accordingly affirm the termination of the mother’s
parental rights on our de novo review of the record.1
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
D.W. is nine years old. In November 2022, the Department of Health and
Human Services investigated a report that the mother and her boyfriend were
using methamphetamine while caring for the child. The mother tested positive for
methamphetamine the next month and agreed to a safety plan placing the child
with a maternal aunt. The State petitioned to have the child adjudicated in need
of the court’s assistance in December. Following a pair of clean drug tests from
the mother, D.W. went back to live with her under an amended safety plan in
January 2023. The juvenile court granted the State’s child-in-need-of-assistance
petition the next month and placed D.W. in the mother’s custody under the
department’s supervision. But that reunification was short-lived.
1 This court reviews the termination of parental rights de novo. In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 168 (Iowa 2021). While the juvenile court’s factual findings are not binding, they are entitled to weight, especially when they involve credibility determinations. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). 3
In May, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine again. She denied
using that drug, although her boyfriend admitted that they tried to tamper with her
sweat patch. This time, the child was placed with fictive kin under a new safety
plan, but when the mother interfered with that placement, the State asked the court
to remove the child from her custody. The court granted the State’s request, and
the child returned to the maternal aunt’s home. After that placement fell through,
the child was placed with a foster family, where he has since remained.
Between May 2023 and September 2024, the mother provided fourteen
sweat patches and one hair sample for testing at the Department’s request. Each
was positive for methamphetamine.2 The mother completed multiple substance
use evaluations and attended an inpatient treatment program between December
2023 and February 2024. But she continued to test positive for methamphetamine
during that treatment program and after her discharge. Apart from a private urine
screen obtained by the mother in August 2024, her last negative test result for the
department was in February 2023.
The mother denied using methamphetamine. She once told her case
manager that a positive test was due to unintentionally consuming meth-laced
marijuana. She said that other test results were caused by her close contact with
known methamphetamine users. The mother had no explanation for the rest,
insisting: “I’m not using, and I’m not doing it.” She maintained the only thing she
ever did to cause the child’s removal was to “allow people to be around me who
2 Many of these tests were also positive for THC, but because the mother had a
medical marijuana card, the department was more concerned with her methamphetamine use. 4
used.” Because of the mother’s failure to address her substance-use issues, the
department recommended terminating her parental rights.
The State sought termination, and a hearing was held in September 2024.
Using the familiar three-step framework for termination of parental rights, see In re
P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40–41 (Iowa 2010), the juvenile court found grounds to
terminate the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e),
and (f) (2024).3 It further concluded that termination was in the child’s best
interests and that the bond between the mother and her son did not support a
permissive exception under section 232.116(3)(c).
The mother appeals, challenging these last two steps in the termination
framework. Confining our review to those steps, we reject the mother’s arguments
on appeal. See id. at 40 (stating we need not address steps the parents do not
challenge on appeal).
II. Analysis
Starting with the best-interests question, 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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2); accord In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748
(Iowa 2011) (stating a child’s safety and need for a permanent home are “the
defining elements in a child’s best interests”). “This consideration may include
whether the parent’s ability to provide the needs of the child is affected by the
parent’s mental capacity or mental condition and the child’s integration into a
3 The father’s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b). He does not appeal. 5
preadoptive home.” In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020) (cleaned up);
see also Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(a), (b).
The mother contends that termination is not in D.W.’s best interest because
she shares a strong emotional bond with the child. She highlights her consistent
participation in twice-weekly supervised visits, her attendance at D.W.’s
extracurricular activities, and service providers’ comments about the affection she
shows her son. The juvenile court did not doubt the mother’s love for D.W. But it
found she was otherwise unequipped to meet the child’s long-term needs for safety
and stability, citing her positive test results and ongoing denial of a drug problem.
Clear and convincing evidence supports that determination. The mother’s record
of testing positive for methamphetamine—and her denials of use—undermine any
assurance that she can provide D.W. with a safe and stable home. See In re W.M.,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1720 Filed January 9, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF D.W., Minor Child,
A.J., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County,
Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son.
AFFIRMED.
Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Barbara E. Maness, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
BADDING, Judge.
A mother struggling with methamphetamine use appeals the termination of
her parental rights to her son, born in 2015, under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f) (2024). She claims that termination is not in the best
interest of the child and that her bond with the child warrants a permissive
exception. Even though the record shows the mother shared a “very strong and
loving bond” with her son, she continued to use methamphetamine after close to
two years of services. We accordingly affirm the termination of the mother’s
parental rights on our de novo review of the record.1
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
D.W. is nine years old. In November 2022, the Department of Health and
Human Services investigated a report that the mother and her boyfriend were
using methamphetamine while caring for the child. The mother tested positive for
methamphetamine the next month and agreed to a safety plan placing the child
with a maternal aunt. The State petitioned to have the child adjudicated in need
of the court’s assistance in December. Following a pair of clean drug tests from
the mother, D.W. went back to live with her under an amended safety plan in
January 2023. The juvenile court granted the State’s child-in-need-of-assistance
petition the next month and placed D.W. in the mother’s custody under the
department’s supervision. But that reunification was short-lived.
1 This court reviews the termination of parental rights de novo. In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 168 (Iowa 2021). While the juvenile court’s factual findings are not binding, they are entitled to weight, especially when they involve credibility determinations. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). 3
In May, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine again. She denied
using that drug, although her boyfriend admitted that they tried to tamper with her
sweat patch. This time, the child was placed with fictive kin under a new safety
plan, but when the mother interfered with that placement, the State asked the court
to remove the child from her custody. The court granted the State’s request, and
the child returned to the maternal aunt’s home. After that placement fell through,
the child was placed with a foster family, where he has since remained.
Between May 2023 and September 2024, the mother provided fourteen
sweat patches and one hair sample for testing at the Department’s request. Each
was positive for methamphetamine.2 The mother completed multiple substance
use evaluations and attended an inpatient treatment program between December
2023 and February 2024. But she continued to test positive for methamphetamine
during that treatment program and after her discharge. Apart from a private urine
screen obtained by the mother in August 2024, her last negative test result for the
department was in February 2023.
The mother denied using methamphetamine. She once told her case
manager that a positive test was due to unintentionally consuming meth-laced
marijuana. She said that other test results were caused by her close contact with
known methamphetamine users. The mother had no explanation for the rest,
insisting: “I’m not using, and I’m not doing it.” She maintained the only thing she
ever did to cause the child’s removal was to “allow people to be around me who
2 Many of these tests were also positive for THC, but because the mother had a
medical marijuana card, the department was more concerned with her methamphetamine use. 4
used.” Because of the mother’s failure to address her substance-use issues, the
department recommended terminating her parental rights.
The State sought termination, and a hearing was held in September 2024.
Using the familiar three-step framework for termination of parental rights, see In re
P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40–41 (Iowa 2010), the juvenile court found grounds to
terminate the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e),
and (f) (2024).3 It further concluded that termination was in the child’s best
interests and that the bond between the mother and her son did not support a
permissive exception under section 232.116(3)(c).
The mother appeals, challenging these last two steps in the termination
framework. Confining our review to those steps, we reject the mother’s arguments
on appeal. See id. at 40 (stating we need not address steps the parents do not
challenge on appeal).
II. Analysis
Starting with the best-interests question, 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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2); accord In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748
(Iowa 2011) (stating a child’s safety and need for a permanent home are “the
defining elements in a child’s best interests”). “This consideration may include
whether the parent’s ability to provide the needs of the child is affected by the
parent’s mental capacity or mental condition and the child’s integration into a
3 The father’s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b). He does not appeal. 5
preadoptive home.” In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020) (cleaned up);
see also Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(a), (b).
The mother contends that termination is not in D.W.’s best interest because
she shares a strong emotional bond with the child. She highlights her consistent
participation in twice-weekly supervised visits, her attendance at D.W.’s
extracurricular activities, and service providers’ comments about the affection she
shows her son. The juvenile court did not doubt the mother’s love for D.W. But it
found she was otherwise unequipped to meet the child’s long-term needs for safety
and stability, citing her positive test results and ongoing denial of a drug problem.
Clear and convincing evidence supports that determination. The mother’s record
of testing positive for methamphetamine—and her denials of use—undermine any
assurance that she can provide D.W. with a safe and stable home. See In re W.M.,
957 N.W.2d 305, 314 (Iowa 2021) (finding termination was in the best interest of
two children whose mother struggled to maintain sobriety from methamphetamine,
noting “repeatedly bouncing in and out of Mom’s chaotic life cannot be healthy”).4
By contrast, D.W. enjoys a steady, nourishing environment in his
preadoptive foster placement. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b). At the time of the
termination hearing, he had been living with his foster family for about ten
months—his longest placement in nearly two years. The case manager testified
that D.W. was receiving “the highest level” of physical, mental, and emotional care
4 That said, we do not discount the mother’s efforts to improve other areas of her
life. At the start of the proceedings, she was sharing a residence with other drug users, in a domestically-violent relationship, and unemployed. By the termination hearing, the mother had ousted her co-habitants, ended her relationship, obtained part-time employment, and maintained stable housing. 6
in the placement and shared a “fantastic” relationship with his caregiver. The case
manager also noted that D.W. shared a strong bond with his foster parent and a
foster sibling, who was the same age as D.W.
The court “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.” W.M., 957
N.W.2d at 314 (citation omitted). Such are the circumstances here. The mother’s
love for D.W. is sadly eclipsed by the dangers of her unresolved drug problem and
the child’s need for long-term stability. See id.; see also In re L.T., No. 24-1348,
2024 WL 4966040, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2024) (finding termination was in
the best interest of a child who was integrated in a long-term foster placement,
despite the mother’s recent efforts to address her methamphetamine use).
Termination is in D.W.’s best interest.
In a similar vein, the mother contends that the evidence of her strong bond
with D.W. merits the permissive exception to termination under Iowa Code
section 232.116(3)(c). See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa 2016) (noting
the exception is “permissive, not mandatory” (citation omitted)). That provision
permits the juvenile court to avoid termination when clear and convincing evidence
shows that it “would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c).
There’s no dispute that D.W. and his mother share a strong emotional
connection. In the words of the case manager, “you can see in interactions that
they do care and love for each other very much.” The mother testified that every
time she arrived for a supervised visit, D.W. greeted her with a smile. But a close 7
bond between child and parent is not enough to avoid termination; the parent must
also show that severing that bond would be detrimental to the child. See A.B., 956
N.W.2d at 169 (“[T]he existence of a bond is not enough.”). Aside from her
testimony that D.W. “will have quite a bit of a hard time,” the mother did not meet
that burden. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018) (“[T]he parent
resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception.”).
Two years after Department intervention, the mother has failed to resolve—
or even acknowledge—her methamphetamine problem. Meanwhile, D.W. is
thriving in his preadoptive foster placement. He should not have to spend any
more of his childhood waiting for a drug-free home. The juvenile court’s order
terminating the mother’s parental rights is affirmed.