IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1446 Filed January 10, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF E.G. and W.G., Minor Children,
W.D., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Lori M. Holm, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
ConGarry D. Williams of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
BADDING, Judge.
At the termination-of-parental-rights hearing for her two children, born in
2018 and 2021, a newly sober mother testified that she wanted “another chance”
to “be a better mom to my boys.” When asked why she was absent for most of the
juvenile court proceedings, the mother answered, “My drug use got really, really
bad. I was in a dark place, and—and I just couldn’t find my way out.”
Though the court praised the mother for her recent sobriety, it concluded
her attempt at a “fourth-quarter comeback”—which happened only after the
permanency goal was changed to termination—was not enough to move the
goalposts. So the court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2023).1 The mother appeals, claiming the juvenile
court erred in finding sufficient evidence that the children could not be returned to
her custody, determining termination was in the children’s best interests, and
denying her request for more time to work toward reunification.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
When the oldest child was three years old—in May 2022—a neighbor found
him in her backyard. He had a large bruise on his head and said that “his mom
had hit him.” The neighbor called the police, who helped the child find his way
back home. Along the way, they ran into the child’s aunt. She was out looking for
the child and told the officers that she suspected the mother was using
methamphetamine because she was “easily agitated, lost her teeth, and was
looking skinny.” A child protective worker from the Iowa Department of Health and
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 3
Human Services met the officers at the child’s home, where they found his parents
and younger brother.2 The mother, who was in a domestically violent relationship
with the father, also had a bruise on her face. The children were placed with
relatives under a safety plan pending drug testing of the parents. After the parents
failed to complete that testing, the State obtained an order for temporary removal
and filed child-in-need-of-assistance petitions. The older child later tested positive
for methamphetamine. The children were adjudicated as in need of assistance in
June.3 That same month, the father was arrested for domestic abuse assault
against the mother.
By the dispositional hearing in August, the mother had not participated in
services outside of visits, which she attended inconsistently. Around then, the
mother admitted to the department that she regularly consumed alcohol and used
methamphetamine “on occasion.” During some of the mother’s visits in
September, she displayed signs of drug use, including paranoia and talking to
herself. The mother was easily frustrated with the children and needed frequent
redirection to ensure their safety. She stopped attending visits altogether in
October.
In January 2023, the father was arrested for assaulting the mother again.
At the permanency hearing in mid-April, the court learned the mother had not
contacted the department or had a visit with the children in more than six months.
2 This was not the first time the family was involved with the department.The mother tested positive for methamphetamine when the older child was born in 2018. She completed outpatient substance-abuse treatment the next year, and the child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding was closed. 3 The mother did not appear for the adjudication hearing, the November review
hearing, or the April 2023 permanency hearing. 4
While the father made a moving plea for more time, the juvenile court agreed with
the department that the case should proceed to termination of parental rights.
The State petitioned to terminate the parents’ rights a few days after that
hearing. At the end of April, the mother was involuntarily committed for treatment.
She stayed at a hospital for a couple of weeks before being transferred to House
of Mercy for residential substance-abuse and mental-health treatment. When she
was at the hospital, the mother contacted the department, seeking visits with the
children. The department denied her request at the recommendation of the oldest
child’s therapist. The mother then filed a motion for services and reasonable
efforts. Following a hearing, the court denied the motion but directed the mother
to reach out to the therapist. In mid-June, the mother renewed her motion for
services and reasonable efforts after talking to the therapist, who was still against
visits. The court denied the motion.
The termination hearing was held in late July. The mother testified that she
was still in inpatient treatment at House of Mercy. She was pregnant again by the
father and unsure whether they would stay together, noting “[r]ight now I’m
focusing on my treatment and myself.” The mother agreed that she did not
voluntarily go to treatment, testifying: “I was court-ordered . . . because of
methamphetamine use and my mental health.” She said that before her
involuntary commitment, she was using methamphetamine “[w]henever [she]
could. Basically 24/7.”
A progress report from House of Mercy stated the mother “needs
improvement” with program attendance and was only “moving towards
engagement” in recovery participation and other areas. Despite being diagnosed 5
with severe anxiety and depression, the mother testified that she had not yet
participated in any individual therapy. But she was committed to staying at House
of Mercy for the full length of the program—“around two years.” The mother
explained the children could be placed with her there “in a relatively short period
of time” and attend the on-site daycare.
The department caseworker testified the older child’s therapist was not on
board with resuming visitation while the termination petitions were pending
because it would cause more harm than good. If visits were to begin, the therapist
told the caseworker “it needed to happen very slowly,” with the mother first
addressing her own mental health before proceeding toward supervised visits.
When asked for her opinion on the mother’s request for an extension of time, the
caseworker testified: “I would really like to see the boys reach a permanency goal.
They’re comfortable where they are. I think it would cause more trauma and
potentially go through this process again.”
In its ruling, the juvenile court concluded the children could not be returned
to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. While the court
commended the mother for being in treatment, the court noted her sobriety “was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1446 Filed January 10, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF E.G. and W.G., Minor Children,
W.D., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Lori M. Holm, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
ConGarry D. Williams of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
BADDING, Judge.
At the termination-of-parental-rights hearing for her two children, born in
2018 and 2021, a newly sober mother testified that she wanted “another chance”
to “be a better mom to my boys.” When asked why she was absent for most of the
juvenile court proceedings, the mother answered, “My drug use got really, really
bad. I was in a dark place, and—and I just couldn’t find my way out.”
Though the court praised the mother for her recent sobriety, it concluded
her attempt at a “fourth-quarter comeback”—which happened only after the
permanency goal was changed to termination—was not enough to move the
goalposts. So the court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2023).1 The mother appeals, claiming the juvenile
court erred in finding sufficient evidence that the children could not be returned to
her custody, determining termination was in the children’s best interests, and
denying her request for more time to work toward reunification.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
When the oldest child was three years old—in May 2022—a neighbor found
him in her backyard. He had a large bruise on his head and said that “his mom
had hit him.” The neighbor called the police, who helped the child find his way
back home. Along the way, they ran into the child’s aunt. She was out looking for
the child and told the officers that she suspected the mother was using
methamphetamine because she was “easily agitated, lost her teeth, and was
looking skinny.” A child protective worker from the Iowa Department of Health and
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 3
Human Services met the officers at the child’s home, where they found his parents
and younger brother.2 The mother, who was in a domestically violent relationship
with the father, also had a bruise on her face. The children were placed with
relatives under a safety plan pending drug testing of the parents. After the parents
failed to complete that testing, the State obtained an order for temporary removal
and filed child-in-need-of-assistance petitions. The older child later tested positive
for methamphetamine. The children were adjudicated as in need of assistance in
June.3 That same month, the father was arrested for domestic abuse assault
against the mother.
By the dispositional hearing in August, the mother had not participated in
services outside of visits, which she attended inconsistently. Around then, the
mother admitted to the department that she regularly consumed alcohol and used
methamphetamine “on occasion.” During some of the mother’s visits in
September, she displayed signs of drug use, including paranoia and talking to
herself. The mother was easily frustrated with the children and needed frequent
redirection to ensure their safety. She stopped attending visits altogether in
October.
In January 2023, the father was arrested for assaulting the mother again.
At the permanency hearing in mid-April, the court learned the mother had not
contacted the department or had a visit with the children in more than six months.
2 This was not the first time the family was involved with the department.The mother tested positive for methamphetamine when the older child was born in 2018. She completed outpatient substance-abuse treatment the next year, and the child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding was closed. 3 The mother did not appear for the adjudication hearing, the November review
hearing, or the April 2023 permanency hearing. 4
While the father made a moving plea for more time, the juvenile court agreed with
the department that the case should proceed to termination of parental rights.
The State petitioned to terminate the parents’ rights a few days after that
hearing. At the end of April, the mother was involuntarily committed for treatment.
She stayed at a hospital for a couple of weeks before being transferred to House
of Mercy for residential substance-abuse and mental-health treatment. When she
was at the hospital, the mother contacted the department, seeking visits with the
children. The department denied her request at the recommendation of the oldest
child’s therapist. The mother then filed a motion for services and reasonable
efforts. Following a hearing, the court denied the motion but directed the mother
to reach out to the therapist. In mid-June, the mother renewed her motion for
services and reasonable efforts after talking to the therapist, who was still against
visits. The court denied the motion.
The termination hearing was held in late July. The mother testified that she
was still in inpatient treatment at House of Mercy. She was pregnant again by the
father and unsure whether they would stay together, noting “[r]ight now I’m
focusing on my treatment and myself.” The mother agreed that she did not
voluntarily go to treatment, testifying: “I was court-ordered . . . because of
methamphetamine use and my mental health.” She said that before her
involuntary commitment, she was using methamphetamine “[w]henever [she]
could. Basically 24/7.”
A progress report from House of Mercy stated the mother “needs
improvement” with program attendance and was only “moving towards
engagement” in recovery participation and other areas. Despite being diagnosed 5
with severe anxiety and depression, the mother testified that she had not yet
participated in any individual therapy. But she was committed to staying at House
of Mercy for the full length of the program—“around two years.” The mother
explained the children could be placed with her there “in a relatively short period
of time” and attend the on-site daycare.
The department caseworker testified the older child’s therapist was not on
board with resuming visitation while the termination petitions were pending
because it would cause more harm than good. If visits were to begin, the therapist
told the caseworker “it needed to happen very slowly,” with the mother first
addressing her own mental health before proceeding toward supervised visits.
When asked for her opinion on the mother’s request for an extension of time, the
caseworker testified: “I would really like to see the boys reach a permanency goal.
They’re comfortable where they are. I think it would cause more trauma and
potentially go through this process again.”
In its ruling, the juvenile court concluded the children could not be returned
to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. While the court
commended the mother for being in treatment, the court noted her sobriety “was
relatively new” and “there is still significant work to do for her to resume custody.”
The court explained that “given her lengthy history of methamphetamine use, prior
child welfare involvement, and the parents’ related struggles with domestic
violence, physical abuse, and supervision in the past, [she] would need to
demonstrate more progress in residential treatment, as well as some success in
the community before reunification could occur.” For many of the same reasons, 6
the court found termination was in the children’s best interest and an extension of
time was unwarranted. The mother appeals.
II. Analysis
We apply a three-step analysis in conducting our de novo review of
terminations of parental rights, asking whether (1) a statutory ground for
termination is satisfied, (2) the children’s best interests are served by termination,
and (3) a statutory exception applies and should be exercised to preclude
termination. See In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)–(3). We confine our review to the steps raised by the parent on
appeal. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Here, those are the first
two. If those steps support termination, we then consider any ancillary issues
raised by the parent, such as whether additional time should be granted. See Iowa
Code § 232.117(5); see also id. § 232.104(2)(b).
A. Grounds for Termination
The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
termination under section 232.116(1)(f) and (h), which apply separately to the
children given their ages. She only challenges the final common element of each
provision—that the children could not be returned to her custody at the time of the
termination hearing.4 See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4), (h)(4); In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting the statutory language “at the present
time” to mean “at the time of the termination hearing”).
4 See In re B.W., No. 23-0518, 2023 WL 4759462, at *3 n.5 (Iowa Ct. App. July 26,
2023) (discussing the two different interpretations in our case law for finding that children “cannot be returned” to parental custody). Our conclusion is the same under either interpretation. 7
The mother seemed to acknowledge at the hearing that the children could
not immediately be placed with her at residential treatment, agreeing with her
attorney that there would need to be a “reunification process with the boys.” But
she overlooked ongoing barriers to that reunification process. Although she was
in a controlled environment that would ensure the children’s safety, the mother had
no contact with them for nearly ten months. During that time, the children became
integrated into their foster home, where they were thriving. One of the foster
mothers told the court at the end of the hearing that both children “were doing
fantastic,” especially the oldest child, who had struggled the most. According to
that child’s therapist, any reintegration of the mother into the children’s lives would
need to happen “very slowly.”
While the mother had commendably achieved more than ninety days of
sobriety, a progress report from the inpatient facility stated that she was not yet
fully engaged in recovery. The mother had only attended four out of the ten
parenting classes that she had been offered and had not yet started individual
therapy, even though it was available. Notably, the mother has been down this
road before. In the past juvenile court case with the oldest child, she successfully
completed substance-abuse treatment for her methamphetamine addiction only to
end up back where she started. See In re H.L., No. 14-0708, 2014 WL 3513262,
at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. July 16, 2014) (stating “[w]hat’s past is prologue” and citing
cases in which a parent’s past performance is viewed as evidence of the parent’s
future); see also In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012) (noting a parent’s
past conduct helps determine future behavior). Given the mother’s history, we
agree with the juvenile court that she “would need to demonstrate more progress 8
in residential treatment, as well as some success in the community before
reunification could occur.” See In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App.
1998) (“Where the parent has been unable to rise above the addiction and
experience sustained sobriety in a noncustodial setting, and establish the essential
support system to maintain sobriety, there is little hope of success in parenting.”).
For these reasons, we find the evidence was sufficient to support
termination under section 232.116(1)(f) and (h).
B. Best Interests
Next, the mother claims termination is contrary to the children’s best
interests. In assessing whether termination is in a child’s best interests, 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).
The mother argues the children would be safe with her at inpatient
treatment. Yet, we have already concluded the children cannot be returned to the
mother’s custody at present. The mother also argues that termination is not in the
children’s best interests because it would sever their relationship with their yet-to-
be-born sibling. While sibling ties are important, the overall question is what is in
the children’s best interests. See In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1994).
From a best-interests standpoint, there is a big difference between severing
established sibling ties versus ties between siblings who have never met, as here.
See id. (affirming separation of siblings where they “never resided together” or
knew each other and one of the children was “strongly bonded to the foster parents 9
with whom he has spent almost his entire life”). All else considered, we find
termination to be in the children’s best interests. It will satisfy the children’s long-
deserved needs for safety and a permanent home—the defining elements of a
child’s best interests. See In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011). It will
also provide them with an opportunity to be adopted by their foster placement,
where the children have become integrated, their behavioral issues have
stabilized, and they have flourished. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b).
C. Additional Time
Finally, the mother claims the court should have granted her request for
more time for reunification. Additional time is appropriate only if we can conclude
“the need for removal . . . will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month
period.” Id. § 232.104(2)(b). As noted, we agree with the juvenile court that the
mother would need to participate in and complete treatment, with an extended
period of sobriety and stability in the community, before the children could be
returned to her care. With her history, she needs more than six months to
accomplish those goals. “The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended
while parents experiment with ways to face up to their own problems.” In re
A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). Because we cannot conclude the need
for removal will no longer exist after six months, we find additional time is not
warranted or in the children’s best interests. See In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323
(Iowa 2021).
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.