IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1226 Filed October 2, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF F.C., Minor Child,
F.C., Father, Appellant,
J.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick McAvan,
Judge.
A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights,
arguing that more time for reunification should be provided and that termination is
not in the best interest of the child. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Maddison A.E. Denny of Broerman, Lindgren & Denny, Oskaloosa, for
appellant father.
Denise M. Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Misty White, Sigourney, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2
LANGHOLZ, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their son under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2024). The juvenile court
found that termination was in the child’s best interest and that no statutory
exception applied. On appeal, the mother and father each argue that more time
for reunification should be provided and that termination is not in the son’s best
interest.
Because neither the mother nor the father asked the juvenile court to grant
more time for reunification, they failed to preserve error on that issue. And
assuming that their general resistance to termination at the hearing preserves their
best-interest challenges, we agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the
son’s best interest. The parents’ failure to obtain substance-use or mental-health
treatment, the need for permanency in the son’s life, and the son’s positive foster-
home environment all support this conclusion. So we affirm on both appeals.
I. Factual Background and Proceedings
In August 2023, a newborn boy came to the attention of the Department of
Health and Human Services (“HHS”) when his mother tested positive for
methamphetamine at the hospital after giving birth. The son also tested positive
for methamphetamine and amphetamines. And so, three days after his birth, he
was removed from the mother and father’s care and custody following an ex parte
removal order and a removal hearing. The son has never resided with his parents.
The mother and father’s drug use—a major factor in the child being
removed from their care—has continued to be an issue. The father told the HHS
worker that he has been using drugs for thirty years. And he told the HHS worker 3
that the mother had been using drugs her whole pregnancy. She also later
admitted to this. The parents were ordered to get substance-use and mental-
health evaluations, submit to random drug testing, and then follow the
recommendations that came from those evaluations. The mother did participate
in one substance abuse evaluation in December 2023. That evaluation diagnosed
the mother with an amphetamine dependence and recommended she complete a
residential treatment program. Despite efforts by the HHS worker to enroll the
mother and personally take her to the treatment program, the mother twice failed
to start the program. And ultimately the mother never participated in that program
or any other treatment. The father has also never participated in any treatment
nor even an assessment. The HHS worker testified that both parents have shown
that they have not stopped using drugs or taken steps to do so. Indeed, the mother
admitted to using drugs as recently as spring 2024.
Neither parent has participated in a mental-health assessment, counseling,
or treatment. They have refused the help of a parent partner and other parenting-
skills services offered by HHS. And they have both missed many of the scheduled
visitation times with the child—the mother missed roughly half and the father nearly
three-quarters. When they have attended visits, each has struggled to
demonstrate basic parenting skills and neither shows an understanding of the
current needs of the son, including not knowing how to prepare bottles or give
proper dosages of medicine for children. The mother has made some progress,
recently successfully changing diapers and buckling the son in a car seat.
Both parents have also struggled to maintain housing. At the start, they
lived with the father’s stepfather—who has a history of drug use and, according to 4
the father, still uses methamphetamine. The HHS worker testified that the parents
told her that they have lived in a tent at different locations and in car washes,
laundromats, and hotels around the area. And at the time of the hearing, the
parents were back to living with the father’s stepfather. The mother has been
approved for federal housing assistance but has not been placed in a home yet.
Neither parent is employed.
The son has been living with his current foster family since February 2024.
They have expressed willingness to adopt him if that option becomes available.
The son is happy and has been progressing developmentally, meeting his
milestones. He is also getting the appropriate medical care he needs. The HHS
worker testified that she did not believe that the son could be returned to either
parent the day of the termination hearing or any time in the future. The guardian
ad litem also recommended terminating both parents’ parental rights.
After a June 2024 hearing—by which, the son was ten months old—the
juvenile court found that the grounds of termination were met under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) for the mother and under paragraphs “e” and “h” for the
father. The court also found that it was in the best interest of the son for both
parents’ parental rights to be terminated. The court explained that “the child could
not be safely returned to either parent,” reasoning that they “have not successfully
addressed the most basic of the department’s recommendations and court’s
orders—substance abuse and mental health services. Neither parent [has] a
stable home for themselves, let alone a child. It is time for [their son] to achieve
permanency.” And the court noted that the son was in a stable foster-care home
and the current foster parents “have expressed an interest in adoption.” Finally, 5
the court found that no exception to termination of parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(3) applies here. So the court terminated the rights of both parents.
And both now separately appeal.
II. Error Preservation on Request for More Time
The mother and father each argue that rather than terminating their rights,
the court should have given them six more months to participate in parenting skill
building and substance-use treatment and to find adequate housing. The State
argues that they failed to preserve error on this issue because neither parent
requested more time for reunification in the juvenile court. Indeed, the parents did
not make any argument at all at the hearing. Nor did they testify or present any
other evidence.
As a court of appeals, we cannot consider an argument unless it is first
raised in the trial court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1226 Filed October 2, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF F.C., Minor Child,
F.C., Father, Appellant,
J.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick McAvan,
Judge.
A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights,
arguing that more time for reunification should be provided and that termination is
not in the best interest of the child. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Maddison A.E. Denny of Broerman, Lindgren & Denny, Oskaloosa, for
appellant father.
Denise M. Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Misty White, Sigourney, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2
LANGHOLZ, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their son under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2024). The juvenile court
found that termination was in the child’s best interest and that no statutory
exception applied. On appeal, the mother and father each argue that more time
for reunification should be provided and that termination is not in the son’s best
interest.
Because neither the mother nor the father asked the juvenile court to grant
more time for reunification, they failed to preserve error on that issue. And
assuming that their general resistance to termination at the hearing preserves their
best-interest challenges, we agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the
son’s best interest. The parents’ failure to obtain substance-use or mental-health
treatment, the need for permanency in the son’s life, and the son’s positive foster-
home environment all support this conclusion. So we affirm on both appeals.
I. Factual Background and Proceedings
In August 2023, a newborn boy came to the attention of the Department of
Health and Human Services (“HHS”) when his mother tested positive for
methamphetamine at the hospital after giving birth. The son also tested positive
for methamphetamine and amphetamines. And so, three days after his birth, he
was removed from the mother and father’s care and custody following an ex parte
removal order and a removal hearing. The son has never resided with his parents.
The mother and father’s drug use—a major factor in the child being
removed from their care—has continued to be an issue. The father told the HHS
worker that he has been using drugs for thirty years. And he told the HHS worker 3
that the mother had been using drugs her whole pregnancy. She also later
admitted to this. The parents were ordered to get substance-use and mental-
health evaluations, submit to random drug testing, and then follow the
recommendations that came from those evaluations. The mother did participate
in one substance abuse evaluation in December 2023. That evaluation diagnosed
the mother with an amphetamine dependence and recommended she complete a
residential treatment program. Despite efforts by the HHS worker to enroll the
mother and personally take her to the treatment program, the mother twice failed
to start the program. And ultimately the mother never participated in that program
or any other treatment. The father has also never participated in any treatment
nor even an assessment. The HHS worker testified that both parents have shown
that they have not stopped using drugs or taken steps to do so. Indeed, the mother
admitted to using drugs as recently as spring 2024.
Neither parent has participated in a mental-health assessment, counseling,
or treatment. They have refused the help of a parent partner and other parenting-
skills services offered by HHS. And they have both missed many of the scheduled
visitation times with the child—the mother missed roughly half and the father nearly
three-quarters. When they have attended visits, each has struggled to
demonstrate basic parenting skills and neither shows an understanding of the
current needs of the son, including not knowing how to prepare bottles or give
proper dosages of medicine for children. The mother has made some progress,
recently successfully changing diapers and buckling the son in a car seat.
Both parents have also struggled to maintain housing. At the start, they
lived with the father’s stepfather—who has a history of drug use and, according to 4
the father, still uses methamphetamine. The HHS worker testified that the parents
told her that they have lived in a tent at different locations and in car washes,
laundromats, and hotels around the area. And at the time of the hearing, the
parents were back to living with the father’s stepfather. The mother has been
approved for federal housing assistance but has not been placed in a home yet.
Neither parent is employed.
The son has been living with his current foster family since February 2024.
They have expressed willingness to adopt him if that option becomes available.
The son is happy and has been progressing developmentally, meeting his
milestones. He is also getting the appropriate medical care he needs. The HHS
worker testified that she did not believe that the son could be returned to either
parent the day of the termination hearing or any time in the future. The guardian
ad litem also recommended terminating both parents’ parental rights.
After a June 2024 hearing—by which, the son was ten months old—the
juvenile court found that the grounds of termination were met under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) for the mother and under paragraphs “e” and “h” for the
father. The court also found that it was in the best interest of the son for both
parents’ parental rights to be terminated. The court explained that “the child could
not be safely returned to either parent,” reasoning that they “have not successfully
addressed the most basic of the department’s recommendations and court’s
orders—substance abuse and mental health services. Neither parent [has] a
stable home for themselves, let alone a child. It is time for [their son] to achieve
permanency.” And the court noted that the son was in a stable foster-care home
and the current foster parents “have expressed an interest in adoption.” Finally, 5
the court found that no exception to termination of parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(3) applies here. So the court terminated the rights of both parents.
And both now separately appeal.
II. Error Preservation on Request for More Time
The mother and father each argue that rather than terminating their rights,
the court should have given them six more months to participate in parenting skill
building and substance-use treatment and to find adequate housing. The State
argues that they failed to preserve error on this issue because neither parent
requested more time for reunification in the juvenile court. Indeed, the parents did
not make any argument at all at the hearing. Nor did they testify or present any
other evidence.
As a court of appeals, we cannot consider an argument unless it is first
raised in the trial court. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). This
requirement to preserve error applies just the same to appeals from a juvenile court
decision terminating parental rights as any other appeal. See id.; see also In re
P.N., No. 20-1167, 2020 WL 6482091, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2020) (“[A]
parent cannot request additional time to work toward reunification for the first time
on appeal.”). The doctrine is not a mere technicality to trip up parties but exists to
give the juvenile court the chance to fully address the party’s arguments and, when
warranted, to fix an error itself “at a time when corrective action can be taken.” In
re Marriage of Heiar, 954 N.W.2d 464, 470 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (cleaned up). It
also prevents “sandbagging—that is, it does not allow a party to choose to remain
silent in the trial court in the face of error, take a chance on a favorable outcome,
and subsequently assert error on appeal if the outcome in the trial court is 6
unfavorable.” State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 199 (Iowa 2022) (cleaned up).
Because neither parent asked for additional time for reunification in the juvenile
court, they did not preserve error. So we do not consider the merits of their
arguments.
III. Best Interest of the Child
Terminating parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 232 follows a three-
step process. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022). First, the State must
prove a statutory ground for termination. Id. Second, the State must show that
termination is in the child’s best interest. Id. And finally, the parent bears the
burden to show whether a discretionary exception applies that should preclude
termination. Id. We review a termination decision de novo, giving “respectful
consideration” to the juvenile court’s fact findings, especially when based on
credibility determinations. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021).
The mother and father each challenge only the second step—whether it is
in the best interest of the son to terminate their parental rights. The State argues
that both parents also failed to preserve error on this issue because their only
participation at the hearing was cross-examining the State’s witness, and neither
presented their own evidence nor made any argument.1 It is questionable whether
error was preserved. See, e.g., In re M.F., No. 18-0289, 2018 WL 3057772, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. June 20, 2018) (holding that parent waived or did not preserve error
by only cross-examining the State’s witness and not introducing her own evidence
1 The mother also left the hearing as the HHS worker was testifying. She interrupted, “I’m out. I’m leaving. I just can’t. I’m good. I don’t care.” But her attorney remained and, after a break, reported that the mother was “emotionally distraught” and wished for the attorney to proceed without her. 7
or objecting to any of the State’s exhibits). But even assuming the parents
preserved error by their general resistance to termination, we agree that
termination of their parental rights is in the son’s best interest.
The best interest of the child is the “paramount concern in a termination
proceeding.” L.B., 970 N.W.2d at 313. We consider both the son’s long-range
and immediate best interests. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).
And we must “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); see also In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
The mother argues termination of her rights is not in the best interest of the
son because she “is very emotionally attached to the child and [she has] made her
best efforts to comply with the HHS requirements.” And the father argues that his
lack of participation in visits and services was due to phone and transportation
issues, he has made progress toward obtaining housing, and that he has
“emotionally bonded with the child and when he is sober, he is a dedicated and
loving parent.” But none of these arguments overcomes the weight of evidence
showing that termination of both parents’ parental rights is in the best interest of
the son.
The parents have failed to participate in substance-use or mental health
treatment or any of the other services repeatedly offered to them by HHS. Rather,
they continue to use drugs, showing no sign that either could provide for the son’s
current or long-term needs and growth. And the limited interactions with their son
during visits confirm that he cannot be safely returned to the custody of either 8
parent now. Meanwhile, the son is doing well in a stable foster-home environment
interested in giving him permanency through adoption.
While we do not doubt the parents love their son, it is in his physical, mental,
and emotional best interest to terminate their parental rights here. We thus affirm
the juvenile court’s termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.