IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1152 Filed October 30, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF E.F., L.F., and W.F., Minor Children,
J.H., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.
AFFIRMED.
Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, PC, Cedar Rapids, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Julie G. Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children:
E.F. (born 2013), L.F. (born 2016), and W.F. (born 2017). The father is deceased.
After considering the mother’s claims about the statutory elements of termination
and the permissive parent-child bond exception, and finding her request for
additional time unpreserved, we affirm the juvenile court.
Background facts and proceedings. This family came to the attention of
the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) due to the mother’s
chronic substance-abuse problems in early 2022. Before this, the family had been
involved with North Dakota’s equivalent child welfare agency. The mother
admitted to methamphetamine use inside and outside the home, and HHS founded
a child-abuse assessment on that basis. HHS provided voluntary services, but the
services did not resolve their concerns.
The children were subsequently adjudicated children in need of assistance
after the mother was hospitalized due to methamphetamine use and also reported
using cocaine. The children remained in the mother’s custody and care, subject
to HHS supervision and the mother’s compliance with substance-abuse and
mental-health recommendations. The mother began but did not successfully
complete substance-abuse treatment in late 2022, and by February 2023 she
disclosed to HHS that she had been abusing alcohol; related records confirmed
she was not attending group meetings relating to sobriety. Around the same time,
the mother missed drug tests and started showing signs of relapse. In April and
May, the mother twice tested positive for methamphetamine and tried to explain 3
the positive result with increasingly incredible explanations, such as questioning
whether the methamphetamine positive could be due to a hemorrhoid cream.
A safety plan required the maternal grandmother to be present in the home
as a sober caretaker, and HHS later placed the children in the grandmother’s care
after removal from the mother. The mother was required to leave the
grandmother’s home after the mother tested positive for methamphetamine a third
time and one of the children tested positive for exposure. Then the grandmother
tested positive for methamphetamine, and the children were placed in foster care.
And the grandmother assaulted an HHS case manager when the children were to
be moved, for which she pled guilty to criminal assault. The grandmother did not
cooperate with further testing after these events, even after the mother resumed
living with her.
The mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine in June, and
she reengaged (at least to some extent) with treatment. But even while
participating in and after completing treatment, she continued to test positive for
methamphetamine. And the children’s guardian ad litem reported behavioral
indicators of use. Despite eighteen methamphetamine-positive test results from
late 2022 through June 2024, the mother claimed she had been sober since
July 2022.
The mother also struggled with her mental health. At one point, the mother
told a provider she had six personalities, three of which she hid from the children.
And she expressed that she did not need mental-health services despite
acknowledging mental-health problems and diagnoses. 4
In the lead-up to the termination trial, the mother regularly attended visits,
which were all fully supervised since removal. She made the children big
promises—like birthday parties at a hotel—and then failed to follow through, which
negatively affected the children. HHS had concerns the oldest child was
“parentified” as a consequence of the mother’s inability to parent. Overall, the
record indicates the children were adoptable and doing reasonably well in foster
care.
The county attorney, HHS, the family support worker, and the children’s
guardian ad litem all recommend termination of parental rights. The mother was
present for the termination trial but did not testify. The juvenile court terminated
the mother’s parental rights to all three children under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) (2024). She appeals, and we review de novo. See In re
W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).
The statutory elements. The mother first challenges whether the State
met its burden to terminate her parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f). We understand her briefing to only contest the fourth
element—whether the children could be returned to her immediate custody. But
the mother’s own petition on appeal proves this element was met, as she writes:
A review of the file in its entirety as well as the record at the time of trial in this matter on the State’s Petition for Termination of Parent/Child Relationship indicates that while the children cannot be returned to the mother’s custody immediately, that the mother has been and is capable of being successful.
While we understand the mother’s optimism that she is capable of being successful
in the future, the inquiry before the juvenile court was whether she could take
immediate custody of the children as of trial—and she concedes she could not. 5
See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014). This ends the analysis, and we
affirm. But we also note that, even without the mother’s concession, we would
uphold termination of her parental rights for reasons that include—but are not
limited to—her longstanding, chronic, and unaddressed substance-abuse
problems, as well as her failure to progress past fully supervised visits over the life
of the case. See In re L.H., ___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2024 WL 3887255, at *1
(Iowa 2024) (“[The parent] never progressed beyond fully-supervised visits, which
also prevented an immediate return of custody.”).
Additional time. One sentence of the mother’s petition on appeal appears
to ask for an additional six months to work toward reunification. This claim does
not appear under a separate heading and is not supported by any independent
analysis of the facts or law. “[A]s we have held before, ‘sprinkled mentions of an
issue’ are insufficient to raise legal claims for our consideration.” In re K.P.,
No. 23-1661, 2024 WL 260885, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2024) (citation
omitted). And beyond the briefing, the mother failed to preserve error on this claim,
as it was not argued by her attorney below, nor did the juvenile court rule on it.
See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1152 Filed October 30, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF E.F., L.F., and W.F., Minor Children,
J.H., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.
AFFIRMED.
Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, PC, Cedar Rapids, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Julie G. Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children:
E.F. (born 2013), L.F. (born 2016), and W.F. (born 2017). The father is deceased.
After considering the mother’s claims about the statutory elements of termination
and the permissive parent-child bond exception, and finding her request for
additional time unpreserved, we affirm the juvenile court.
Background facts and proceedings. This family came to the attention of
the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) due to the mother’s
chronic substance-abuse problems in early 2022. Before this, the family had been
involved with North Dakota’s equivalent child welfare agency. The mother
admitted to methamphetamine use inside and outside the home, and HHS founded
a child-abuse assessment on that basis. HHS provided voluntary services, but the
services did not resolve their concerns.
The children were subsequently adjudicated children in need of assistance
after the mother was hospitalized due to methamphetamine use and also reported
using cocaine. The children remained in the mother’s custody and care, subject
to HHS supervision and the mother’s compliance with substance-abuse and
mental-health recommendations. The mother began but did not successfully
complete substance-abuse treatment in late 2022, and by February 2023 she
disclosed to HHS that she had been abusing alcohol; related records confirmed
she was not attending group meetings relating to sobriety. Around the same time,
the mother missed drug tests and started showing signs of relapse. In April and
May, the mother twice tested positive for methamphetamine and tried to explain 3
the positive result with increasingly incredible explanations, such as questioning
whether the methamphetamine positive could be due to a hemorrhoid cream.
A safety plan required the maternal grandmother to be present in the home
as a sober caretaker, and HHS later placed the children in the grandmother’s care
after removal from the mother. The mother was required to leave the
grandmother’s home after the mother tested positive for methamphetamine a third
time and one of the children tested positive for exposure. Then the grandmother
tested positive for methamphetamine, and the children were placed in foster care.
And the grandmother assaulted an HHS case manager when the children were to
be moved, for which she pled guilty to criminal assault. The grandmother did not
cooperate with further testing after these events, even after the mother resumed
living with her.
The mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine in June, and
she reengaged (at least to some extent) with treatment. But even while
participating in and after completing treatment, she continued to test positive for
methamphetamine. And the children’s guardian ad litem reported behavioral
indicators of use. Despite eighteen methamphetamine-positive test results from
late 2022 through June 2024, the mother claimed she had been sober since
July 2022.
The mother also struggled with her mental health. At one point, the mother
told a provider she had six personalities, three of which she hid from the children.
And she expressed that she did not need mental-health services despite
acknowledging mental-health problems and diagnoses. 4
In the lead-up to the termination trial, the mother regularly attended visits,
which were all fully supervised since removal. She made the children big
promises—like birthday parties at a hotel—and then failed to follow through, which
negatively affected the children. HHS had concerns the oldest child was
“parentified” as a consequence of the mother’s inability to parent. Overall, the
record indicates the children were adoptable and doing reasonably well in foster
care.
The county attorney, HHS, the family support worker, and the children’s
guardian ad litem all recommend termination of parental rights. The mother was
present for the termination trial but did not testify. The juvenile court terminated
the mother’s parental rights to all three children under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) (2024). She appeals, and we review de novo. See In re
W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).
The statutory elements. The mother first challenges whether the State
met its burden to terminate her parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f). We understand her briefing to only contest the fourth
element—whether the children could be returned to her immediate custody. But
the mother’s own petition on appeal proves this element was met, as she writes:
A review of the file in its entirety as well as the record at the time of trial in this matter on the State’s Petition for Termination of Parent/Child Relationship indicates that while the children cannot be returned to the mother’s custody immediately, that the mother has been and is capable of being successful.
While we understand the mother’s optimism that she is capable of being successful
in the future, the inquiry before the juvenile court was whether she could take
immediate custody of the children as of trial—and she concedes she could not. 5
See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014). This ends the analysis, and we
affirm. But we also note that, even without the mother’s concession, we would
uphold termination of her parental rights for reasons that include—but are not
limited to—her longstanding, chronic, and unaddressed substance-abuse
problems, as well as her failure to progress past fully supervised visits over the life
of the case. See In re L.H., ___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2024 WL 3887255, at *1
(Iowa 2024) (“[The parent] never progressed beyond fully-supervised visits, which
also prevented an immediate return of custody.”).
Additional time. One sentence of the mother’s petition on appeal appears
to ask for an additional six months to work toward reunification. This claim does
not appear under a separate heading and is not supported by any independent
analysis of the facts or law. “[A]s we have held before, ‘sprinkled mentions of an
issue’ are insufficient to raise legal claims for our consideration.” In re K.P.,
No. 23-1661, 2024 WL 260885, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2024) (citation
omitted). And beyond the briefing, the mother failed to preserve error on this claim,
as it was not argued by her attorney below, nor did the juvenile court rule on it.
See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental
doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided
by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.”). To the extent it is
raised, we do not address this issue any further.
Bond exception. The mother’s last claim asserts her bond with the
children should have precluded termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). A
parent resisting termination based on this permissive exception has the burden to
prove by clear and convincing evidence that severing this bond would be 6
detrimental to the children. Id. And our case law recognizes that—without more—
neither a parent’s love nor the mere existence of a bond is enough to prevent
termination. See In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169–70 (Iowa 2021); In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010). In our review of the record, we generally agree with
the HHS worker’s assessment:
I think the children and [the mother] are affectionately bonded. I think there’s also an unhealthy bond, and that’s due to [the mother] trying to be their friend, involving them in adult conversations, making promises, no follow through. [The mother]’s serious lack of judgment is what’s impairing her relationship with her children.
We, like the juvenile court, find the mother failed to carry her burden to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that preserving this bond outweighs the children’s
need for stability in a safe and sober home—something the mother cannot provide
for the reasons discussed in this opinion. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225
(Iowa 2016) (noting we consider the bond in the context of a case’s unique
circumstances and the children’s best interests). As a result, we affirm the juvenile
court’s decision to not thwart termination on this basis.