IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1579 Filed March 3, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF E.M., D.K.-M., and B.M., Minor Children,
D.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph McCarville,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three young
daughters. AFFIRMED.
Alesha M. Sigmeth Roberts of Sigmeth Roberts Law, PLC, Clarion, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Sarah J. Livingston of Thatcher, Tofilon and Livingston, P.L.C., Fort Dodge,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three
daughters, ages four, three, and one year at the time of the termination hearing.1
The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the district court
for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2020). She also argues
the State failed to provide reasonable efforts for reunification. Lastly, she requests
an additional six months to reunify with her daughters. We address each argument
in turn.
1. Background Facts and Proceedings
D.K.-M., born in 2016, and E.M., born in 2017, came to the attention of the
Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) due to concerns of methamphetamine
use by the mother and her paramour. The mother’s paramour was residing in the
family home. The mother’s drug test results were negative, but her paramour
admitted to use of methamphetamine. DHS developed a safety plan, and D.K.-M.
and E.M. were placed with their maternal grandmother and the grandmother’s
husband in April 2018.2 This relative placement was short-lived, however, as the
girls were subjected to lice, bed bugs, and cockroaches at the grandmother’s
residence, resulting in the girls having “bites all over their bodies.” The district
court’s removal order characterized the home as “filthy.” E.M. and D.K.-M. were
1 The parental rights of D.K.-M.’s legal father were terminated on September 30, 2020. He has not appealed. The parental rights of D.K.-M. and B.M.’s biological father were terminated on October 1, 2020. He has not appealed. The parental rights of E.M.’s biological father were terminated on November 18, 2020. He has also not appealed. 2 The mother informed DHS she was sexually abused by her stepfather for a period
of seven years. At the time of the termination hearing, the mother was again residing in the home of her mother and stepfather. 3
formally removed from parental custody on July 5, 2018. B.M., born in 2019, was
removed from parental custody on June 14, 2019, shortly after her birth. At the
time of the termination hearing, the three girls were residing together in a foster
home placement.
E.M. and D.K.-M. were adjudicated as children in need of assistance (CINA)
on July 12, 2018, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2018).
B.M. was adjudicated CINA on April 29, 2020, pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(n) (2020).3 The children have remained out of the home since the dates
of their removal. There have not been any trial home placements.
In addition to illegal drug concerns in the home, the mother’s mental-health
diagnoses have interfered with her ability to safely parent her daughters. She has
been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, mild intellectual disorder,
dissociative identity disorder, and bipolar I disorder. She struggled to address her
mental health on a consistent basis since court involvement. The mother had not
seen her therapist for the six months preceding the termination hearing. She was
compliant with medication management. Following a parent evaluation, it was
recommended all of the mother’s interactions with her daughters be supervised. It
was also recommended that the mother move to a group care facility for her own
well-being. The mother declined the group care recommendation. The mother
failed to follow through with the intellectual disability waiver program. She did not
3 From the record, it appears that the court entered separate orders for adjudication for the mother and at least one of the fathers. The adjudication dates cited in our opinion relate to the mother. 4
consistently comply with Safe Care, a program designed to assist with parenting
skills.
In addition to a lack of follow-through with services, the mother was
inconsistent in contact with her daughters. While initially offered two visits per
week, the mother reported the frequency of the visits to be overwhelming. At her
request, the visits were reduced to once per week. While an attempt was made to
increase the mother’s visits, they were again reduced to once per week at the
mother’s request, beginning in August 2020. The mother missed thirty-five out of
fifty-four visits since January 2020. While afforded a telephone call once per week,
the mother testified that she often “spaced off” those opportunities for contact.
Also concerning is the mother’s ongoing relationship with her paramour,
who has an unaddressed substance-abuse issue. At the time of the termination
hearing, he was in a halfway house. The mother testified she remained in a
relationship with him, despite being informed by DHS that he was a barrier to her
reunification with the girls. The mother has also maintained a relationship with a
federal parolee on the sex offender registry.
2. Analysis
A. Statutory Grounds
We begin our analysis guided by defined case law and statutory guidance
concerning termination of parental rights. The district court terminated the mother’s
parental rights to D.K.-M. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e) and (f). The district
court terminated the mother’s parental rights to E.M. and B.M. pursuant to section
232.116(1)(e) and (h). On appeal, the mother challenges termination only
pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e). 5
The mother’s failure to challenge termination under paragraph (f) and (h)
waives any error as it relates to those grounds for termination, and we may affirm
on those grounds without further analysis. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707
(Iowa 2010) (“On appeal, we may affirm the juvenile court’s termination order on
any ground that we find supported by clear and convincing evidence.”); In re P.L.,
778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (finding the court did “not have to discuss this step”
where the parent did not dispute the existence of at least some of the statutory
grounds); see, e.g., In re K.K., 16-0151, 2016 WL 1129330, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 23, 2016) (noting parent’s failure to challenge statutory grounds under
paragraphs (h) and (l) and affirming under those grounds without further analysis).
Accordingly, we affirm the termination as to D.K.-M. under section 232.116(1)(f)
and as to E.M. and B.M. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).
B. Reasonable Efforts
The mother also argues the State failed to provide reasonable efforts toward
reunification.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1579 Filed March 3, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF E.M., D.K.-M., and B.M., Minor Children,
D.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph McCarville,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three young
daughters. AFFIRMED.
Alesha M. Sigmeth Roberts of Sigmeth Roberts Law, PLC, Clarion, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Sarah J. Livingston of Thatcher, Tofilon and Livingston, P.L.C., Fort Dodge,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three
daughters, ages four, three, and one year at the time of the termination hearing.1
The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the district court
for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2020). She also argues
the State failed to provide reasonable efforts for reunification. Lastly, she requests
an additional six months to reunify with her daughters. We address each argument
in turn.
1. Background Facts and Proceedings
D.K.-M., born in 2016, and E.M., born in 2017, came to the attention of the
Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) due to concerns of methamphetamine
use by the mother and her paramour. The mother’s paramour was residing in the
family home. The mother’s drug test results were negative, but her paramour
admitted to use of methamphetamine. DHS developed a safety plan, and D.K.-M.
and E.M. were placed with their maternal grandmother and the grandmother’s
husband in April 2018.2 This relative placement was short-lived, however, as the
girls were subjected to lice, bed bugs, and cockroaches at the grandmother’s
residence, resulting in the girls having “bites all over their bodies.” The district
court’s removal order characterized the home as “filthy.” E.M. and D.K.-M. were
1 The parental rights of D.K.-M.’s legal father were terminated on September 30, 2020. He has not appealed. The parental rights of D.K.-M. and B.M.’s biological father were terminated on October 1, 2020. He has not appealed. The parental rights of E.M.’s biological father were terminated on November 18, 2020. He has also not appealed. 2 The mother informed DHS she was sexually abused by her stepfather for a period
of seven years. At the time of the termination hearing, the mother was again residing in the home of her mother and stepfather. 3
formally removed from parental custody on July 5, 2018. B.M., born in 2019, was
removed from parental custody on June 14, 2019, shortly after her birth. At the
time of the termination hearing, the three girls were residing together in a foster
home placement.
E.M. and D.K.-M. were adjudicated as children in need of assistance (CINA)
on July 12, 2018, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2018).
B.M. was adjudicated CINA on April 29, 2020, pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(n) (2020).3 The children have remained out of the home since the dates
of their removal. There have not been any trial home placements.
In addition to illegal drug concerns in the home, the mother’s mental-health
diagnoses have interfered with her ability to safely parent her daughters. She has
been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, mild intellectual disorder,
dissociative identity disorder, and bipolar I disorder. She struggled to address her
mental health on a consistent basis since court involvement. The mother had not
seen her therapist for the six months preceding the termination hearing. She was
compliant with medication management. Following a parent evaluation, it was
recommended all of the mother’s interactions with her daughters be supervised. It
was also recommended that the mother move to a group care facility for her own
well-being. The mother declined the group care recommendation. The mother
failed to follow through with the intellectual disability waiver program. She did not
3 From the record, it appears that the court entered separate orders for adjudication for the mother and at least one of the fathers. The adjudication dates cited in our opinion relate to the mother. 4
consistently comply with Safe Care, a program designed to assist with parenting
skills.
In addition to a lack of follow-through with services, the mother was
inconsistent in contact with her daughters. While initially offered two visits per
week, the mother reported the frequency of the visits to be overwhelming. At her
request, the visits were reduced to once per week. While an attempt was made to
increase the mother’s visits, they were again reduced to once per week at the
mother’s request, beginning in August 2020. The mother missed thirty-five out of
fifty-four visits since January 2020. While afforded a telephone call once per week,
the mother testified that she often “spaced off” those opportunities for contact.
Also concerning is the mother’s ongoing relationship with her paramour,
who has an unaddressed substance-abuse issue. At the time of the termination
hearing, he was in a halfway house. The mother testified she remained in a
relationship with him, despite being informed by DHS that he was a barrier to her
reunification with the girls. The mother has also maintained a relationship with a
federal parolee on the sex offender registry.
2. Analysis
A. Statutory Grounds
We begin our analysis guided by defined case law and statutory guidance
concerning termination of parental rights. The district court terminated the mother’s
parental rights to D.K.-M. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e) and (f). The district
court terminated the mother’s parental rights to E.M. and B.M. pursuant to section
232.116(1)(e) and (h). On appeal, the mother challenges termination only
pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e). 5
The mother’s failure to challenge termination under paragraph (f) and (h)
waives any error as it relates to those grounds for termination, and we may affirm
on those grounds without further analysis. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707
(Iowa 2010) (“On appeal, we may affirm the juvenile court’s termination order on
any ground that we find supported by clear and convincing evidence.”); In re P.L.,
778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (finding the court did “not have to discuss this step”
where the parent did not dispute the existence of at least some of the statutory
grounds); see, e.g., In re K.K., 16-0151, 2016 WL 1129330, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 23, 2016) (noting parent’s failure to challenge statutory grounds under
paragraphs (h) and (l) and affirming under those grounds without further analysis).
Accordingly, we affirm the termination as to D.K.-M. under section 232.116(1)(f)
and as to E.M. and B.M. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).
B. Reasonable Efforts
The mother also argues the State failed to provide reasonable efforts toward
reunification. “The State must show reasonable efforts as a part of its ultimate
proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent.” In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000); see also Iowa Code § 232.102(7) (providing that if
custody is transferred to DHS, it “shall make every reasonable effort to return the
child to the child’s home as quickly as possible consistent with the best interests
of the child”). “The reasonable efforts concept would broadly include a visitation
arrangement designed to facilitate reunification while protecting the child from the
harm responsible for the removal.” In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App.
1996). 6
Although DHS must make reasonable efforts in furtherance of reunification,
with some exceptions not applicable here, parents have a responsibility to object
when they claim the nature or extent of services is inadequate. See C.B., 611
N.W.2d at 493–94. A parent’s objection to the sufficiency of services should be
made “early in the process so appropriate changes can be made.” Id. On appeal,
the mother alleges that she preserved error on this issue at the combined
permanency and termination hearing. Here, the record is not adequate to preserve
error on appeal. “In general, if a parent fails to request other services at the proper
time, the parent waives the issue and may not later challenge it at the termination
proceeding.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002). The mother does not
cites to any specific challenges lodged prior to the termination hearing as to
reasonable efforts provided by the State. We find the mother has failed to preserve
a reasonable efforts argument and do not further address this issue.
C. Extension of Time
Lastly, the mother argues she should have been granted an additional six
monthsto reunify with her daughters.4 In support of the six-month request, the
mother relies on her testimony from the termination hearing: “To go to my
appointments like I’m supposed to. Keep going to my visits like I’m supposed to.
Video chat the girls like I’m supposed to. Do the Safe Care more like I’m supposed
to. And get my own place.”
4 We address this issue although it does not appear the district court specifically ruled upon a request for an extension of time. See In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003) (stating issues “must be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal”). 7
Under section 232.117(5), the district court may order an extension of time
under section 232.104 as an alternative to terminating parental rights. A six-month
extension may be granted based on a “determination that the need for removal of
the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-
month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). At the time of the termination hearing
held in November 2020, the two older children had been out of parental custody
for twenty-seven months. The youngest child had been out of the home for over
a year, her entire life. The mother remained unable to meet her own needs. While
the mother made assurances of future compliance, the past two years are
indicative of the mother’s resolve. The mother continued in a relationship fraught
with domestic violence. She has been unable to recognize the danger her
relationships present to her girls.
While provided over two years of services, the mother has not been able to
move beyond fully-supervised visits. DHS noted the mother’s participation in
services and interactions with her daughters had lessened over the six months
preceding the termination hearing. Further, the mother acknowledged her
relationship with her daughters was “not a very close one.” The mother’s progress
for reunification has fallen flat to the detriment of her daughters. We are unable to
determine with more time the need for removal will no longer exist at the conclusion
of a six-month extension. The children’s time for permanency is long overdue.
3. Conclusion
Based on our de novo review of the record, we affirm the termination of the
mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) as to D.K.-M. and under
section 232.116(1)(h) as to E.M. and B.M. We find the mother’s reasonable efforts 8
argument to be unpreserved and a six-month extension of time for reunification is
not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.