IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1470 Filed February 22, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., Minor Child,
K.R., Mother, Appellant, ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County,
Shawna L. Ditsworth, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Tobias A. Cosgrove, Sibley, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Alexandria Celli Smith of Sandy Law Firm, Spirit Lake, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J, and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
The mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. She
challenges placement of the child after termination and urges that a permissive
exception should have precluded termination. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Before the birth of the child at issue in this appeal, the Iowa Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) found the mother repeatedly used
methamphetamine while caring for other children. The mother’s rights to those
children were terminated in 2014 and 2015.
When the child at issue in this appeal was born in 2019, the child’s
meconium tested positive for methamphetamine, leading to reports to Nebraska’s
and North Dakota’s child-welfare agencies. In 2020, HHS became aware that the
mother was using methamphetamine while caring for the child, then eight months
old. There were also reports that the mother was abusing prescription medication
and that the mother and child were staying in homes where illegal drugs were
used. The child’s fictive father also had a history of methamphetamine use.
Neither the mother nor fictive father cooperated with HHS efforts, and the child
was placed with the fictive paternal grandfather pursuant to an ex parte removal
order.
When first assessed, the mother admitted to substance abuse and seemed
amenable to inpatient treatment. The mother also admitted to her history of
involvement with various states’ child-welfare agencies and to spending time in
both jail and prison. The fictive father remained uncooperative and refused drug
testing, as he believed he would test positive for marijuana. The fictive father 3
admitted that he and the mother had abused controlled substances, including
methamphetamine, for a long time.
In June 2020, the mother, fictive father, and child all tested positive for
amphetamines and methamphetamine on a hair test. HHS made a founded child-
abuse assessment against the mother and fictive father on that basis. And the
child was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance (CINA). The child was
placed with the mother on the condition that the mother participate in and complete
inpatient treatment. A caveat of the placement was that, if the mother left or
unsuccessfully discharged the treatment program, placement and custody would
automatically revert to HHS.
In July 2020, the mother left the treatment center against medical advice
and moved in with the fictive grandfather. The mother briefly returned to the
treatment center, but she left again without successfully completing the program
and moved in with the fictive father. The child was placed with the fictive
grandfather while remaining in HHS custody.
For the later months of 2020, the mother appeared to maintain sobriety and
used services. The CINA adjudication continued, and the mother was ordered to
comply with drug testing. The child continued to reside with the fictive grandfather.
In February 2021, the mother disclosed to HHS that she was pregnant.
There was conflict between the fictive father and the mother, and they temporarily
separated.
In May 2021, the mother caused a car accident with the child in the car.
The mother apparently fell asleep at the wheel, failed to yield at a stop sign, and
crashed into another vehicle. The child did not suffer any injuries in the crash. The 4
mother was taken to the hospital, where she gave birth to the child’s youngest
sibling (not at issue in this appeal). Once again, the mother and newborn child
tested positive for both amphetamines and methamphetamine. The mother
admitted to using methamphetamine three days before the crash, while pregnant.
Around the same time, the fictive father’s hair also tested positive for
methamphetamine. HHS once again made founded child-abuse assessments
against both the mother and fictive father.
At a June 2021 permanency hearing, the parties agreed to continue
reunification efforts for the mother over the next six months, so long as she
addressed her substance-abuse problems and followed case plan
recommendations. Custody of the child remained with HHS.
At some point between February and June 2021, the mother and fictive
father got back together. The sheriff’s office responded to a call from a hotel
manager, describing a woman (later identified as the mother) who stumbled into
the lobby and needed an ambulance. The mother reported that the fictive father
grabbed her and caused her to fall, which aggravated her concussion from the May
car accident. The mother and fictive father started residing together again some
time after that. In September 2021, both the mother and fictive father once again
tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. The fictive father
blamed his exposure on the mother, but his November sweat patch confirmed
ongoing methamphetamine usage. The mother admitted that she and the fictive
father used marijuana and methamphetamine “one or two nights” each week.
The mother and fictive father have had some degree of on-again/off-again
relationship since then. The mother was also romantically linked to another 5
methamphetamine user, and she tested positive for amphetamine again in
February 2022. Both the mother and fictive father refused an HHS-requested drug
test in May 2022.
At the time of the termination hearing, the child was placed in a pre-adoptive
home and was generally progressing. The State and guardian ad litem both
recommended termination of parental rights and adoption. The mother requested
guardianship placement with the fictive grandfather. The fictive grandfather, as an
intervenor, requested placement with the fictive father or himself. The fictive
father, also as an intervenor, requested placement with himself.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights and placed
custody with HHS for adoption. Notices of appeal were filed by the mother, fictive
father, and fictive grandfather. The fictive father’s and fictive grandfather’s
intervenor–appeals were dismissed by the supreme court when they failed to file
petitions on appeal or other appellate papers, leaving only the mother’s petition for
resolution by our court.
II. Discussion
The mother raises two issues on appeal. First, she asserts that the juvenile
court should have placed the child with the fictive father or fictive grandfather.
Second, she asserts her bond with the child warrants application of a permissive
exception to termination. Neither claim warrants reversal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1470 Filed February 22, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., Minor Child,
K.R., Mother, Appellant, ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County,
Shawna L. Ditsworth, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Tobias A. Cosgrove, Sibley, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Alexandria Celli Smith of Sandy Law Firm, Spirit Lake, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J, and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
The mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. She
challenges placement of the child after termination and urges that a permissive
exception should have precluded termination. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Before the birth of the child at issue in this appeal, the Iowa Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) found the mother repeatedly used
methamphetamine while caring for other children. The mother’s rights to those
children were terminated in 2014 and 2015.
When the child at issue in this appeal was born in 2019, the child’s
meconium tested positive for methamphetamine, leading to reports to Nebraska’s
and North Dakota’s child-welfare agencies. In 2020, HHS became aware that the
mother was using methamphetamine while caring for the child, then eight months
old. There were also reports that the mother was abusing prescription medication
and that the mother and child were staying in homes where illegal drugs were
used. The child’s fictive father also had a history of methamphetamine use.
Neither the mother nor fictive father cooperated with HHS efforts, and the child
was placed with the fictive paternal grandfather pursuant to an ex parte removal
order.
When first assessed, the mother admitted to substance abuse and seemed
amenable to inpatient treatment. The mother also admitted to her history of
involvement with various states’ child-welfare agencies and to spending time in
both jail and prison. The fictive father remained uncooperative and refused drug
testing, as he believed he would test positive for marijuana. The fictive father 3
admitted that he and the mother had abused controlled substances, including
methamphetamine, for a long time.
In June 2020, the mother, fictive father, and child all tested positive for
amphetamines and methamphetamine on a hair test. HHS made a founded child-
abuse assessment against the mother and fictive father on that basis. And the
child was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance (CINA). The child was
placed with the mother on the condition that the mother participate in and complete
inpatient treatment. A caveat of the placement was that, if the mother left or
unsuccessfully discharged the treatment program, placement and custody would
automatically revert to HHS.
In July 2020, the mother left the treatment center against medical advice
and moved in with the fictive grandfather. The mother briefly returned to the
treatment center, but she left again without successfully completing the program
and moved in with the fictive father. The child was placed with the fictive
grandfather while remaining in HHS custody.
For the later months of 2020, the mother appeared to maintain sobriety and
used services. The CINA adjudication continued, and the mother was ordered to
comply with drug testing. The child continued to reside with the fictive grandfather.
In February 2021, the mother disclosed to HHS that she was pregnant.
There was conflict between the fictive father and the mother, and they temporarily
separated.
In May 2021, the mother caused a car accident with the child in the car.
The mother apparently fell asleep at the wheel, failed to yield at a stop sign, and
crashed into another vehicle. The child did not suffer any injuries in the crash. The 4
mother was taken to the hospital, where she gave birth to the child’s youngest
sibling (not at issue in this appeal). Once again, the mother and newborn child
tested positive for both amphetamines and methamphetamine. The mother
admitted to using methamphetamine three days before the crash, while pregnant.
Around the same time, the fictive father’s hair also tested positive for
methamphetamine. HHS once again made founded child-abuse assessments
against both the mother and fictive father.
At a June 2021 permanency hearing, the parties agreed to continue
reunification efforts for the mother over the next six months, so long as she
addressed her substance-abuse problems and followed case plan
recommendations. Custody of the child remained with HHS.
At some point between February and June 2021, the mother and fictive
father got back together. The sheriff’s office responded to a call from a hotel
manager, describing a woman (later identified as the mother) who stumbled into
the lobby and needed an ambulance. The mother reported that the fictive father
grabbed her and caused her to fall, which aggravated her concussion from the May
car accident. The mother and fictive father started residing together again some
time after that. In September 2021, both the mother and fictive father once again
tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. The fictive father
blamed his exposure on the mother, but his November sweat patch confirmed
ongoing methamphetamine usage. The mother admitted that she and the fictive
father used marijuana and methamphetamine “one or two nights” each week.
The mother and fictive father have had some degree of on-again/off-again
relationship since then. The mother was also romantically linked to another 5
methamphetamine user, and she tested positive for amphetamine again in
February 2022. Both the mother and fictive father refused an HHS-requested drug
test in May 2022.
At the time of the termination hearing, the child was placed in a pre-adoptive
home and was generally progressing. The State and guardian ad litem both
recommended termination of parental rights and adoption. The mother requested
guardianship placement with the fictive grandfather. The fictive grandfather, as an
intervenor, requested placement with the fictive father or himself. The fictive
father, also as an intervenor, requested placement with himself.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights and placed
custody with HHS for adoption. Notices of appeal were filed by the mother, fictive
father, and fictive grandfather. The fictive father’s and fictive grandfather’s
intervenor–appeals were dismissed by the supreme court when they failed to file
petitions on appeal or other appellate papers, leaving only the mother’s petition for
resolution by our court.
II. Discussion
The mother raises two issues on appeal. First, she asserts that the juvenile
court should have placed the child with the fictive father or fictive grandfather.
Second, she asserts her bond with the child warrants application of a permissive
exception to termination. Neither claim warrants reversal.
“We review termination proceedings de novo.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489,
492 (Iowa 2000). “The primary interest in termination proceedings is the best
interests of the child.” Id. 6
As to the first issue, the mother’s complaint that the fictive father or fictive
grandfather were better placements, we agree with the State that the mother lacks
standing to bring this claim. See In re K.A., 516 N.W.2d 35, 38 (Iowa Ct. App.
1994) (holding that a parent whose rights were terminated had no right to
participate in a placement hearing because “termination of [the mother’s] rights
concerning these three children divest[ed] her of all privileges, duties, and powers
with respect to the children”); In re D.B., 483 N.W.2d 344, 346 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992)
(refusing to consider claim about placement, made by parent whose rights were
terminated, because termination divested the parent of “any legally recognizable
interest she would have concerning the guardianship or custody of” the child). This
lack of standing ends the analysis, given the supreme court’s dismissal of the
intervenors’ appeals. To the extent the mother makes policy arguments in her
petition about what the guardianship provision of the statute should say, rather
than what it does, that is for the General Assembly to decide—not the courts. In
re Guardianship of Radda, 955 N.W.2d 203, 214 (Iowa 2021) (“Policy arguments
to amend the statue should be directed to the legislature.” (quoting In re Est. of
Whalen, 827 N.W.2d 184, 194 (Iowa 2013))).
We note the mother’s challenge on appeal appears limited to asserting the
juvenile court erred under Iowa Code section 232.117(3) (2022), involving
placement of the child after termination; she does not argue the court should have
ordered a guardianship in lieu of termination pursuant to section 232.104(2)(d)(2).
In any event, even if the mother had requested a guardianship placement,
termination would still be warranted given her ongoing struggle with substance
abuse and involvement with other substance abusers. See In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 7
29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017) (“[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative
to termination.”).
Second, it is debatable whether the mother preserved error as to the
permissive bond exception. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012)
(“[T]he general rule that appellate arguments must first be raised in the trial court
applies to CINA and termination of parental rights cases.”). As the State correctly
points out, the juvenile court did not seem to think the mother adequately raised
the issue, writing: “Although [the mother] loves [the child], the Court does not
believe there is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be
detrimental to [the child] due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship, nor
was this even asserted at the hearing.” (Emphasis added.) Assuming without
deciding this issue is properly before us, we affirm the juvenile court. The mother
bore the burden to prove this permissive exception by clear and convincing
evidence. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). A parent’s love is not
enough to prevent termination, nor is the mere existence of a bond. 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). Any connection the child may still have with the mother, despite being
removed from her for two years at the time of the termination hearing, does not
nearly outweigh the need to give this child permanency in light of the mother’s
failure to provide a safe, stable, and drug-free home.
Finally, we note the State concludes its response to the petition on appeal
with a procedural argument about combined permanency and termination
hearings, in the event we found scattered references in the mother’s brief sufficient
to present the issue. We understand the State’s concern as appellee in letting 8
sprinkled mentions of an issue go unchallenged, given the potentially dire
consequences if we were to find the State failed to respond to an issue. We re-
affirm that “random mention of [an] issue, without elaboration or supportive
authority, is insufficient to raise the issue for our consideration,” and therefore
confine our review to the issues properly presented by the mother. See Soo Line
R.R. Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 691 (Iowa 1994).
AFFIRMED.