In the Interest of K.C., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 25-1336
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-1336 Filed October 15, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF K.C., Minor Child,

S.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington,

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child.

AFFIRMED.

G. Brian Weiler, Davenport, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Christine Frederick of Zamora, Taylor & Frederick, Davenport, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to a child born in 2019.

The father’s rights were also terminated, but he does not appeal. After considering

the arguments properly presented in the mother’s petition on appeal, we affirm.

This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) in 2024, when the child’s grandmother contacted police

and reported the mother was denying the child food. When questioned, the mother

said that “God” told her that she and the child should fast. An HHS worker

observed that the child was obviously hungry.

The mother’s mental health concerned HHS, and she eventually agreed to

inpatient treatment. HHS attempted to implement a safety plan with the

grandmother’s assistance, but this was not successful. The mother continued to

provide inadequate supervision and engage in concerning behaviors, leading to

the child’s formal removal and placement with the grandmother.

As of trial, the mother continued to struggle with her mental health. The

juvenile court found “it is obvious to the court [that the mother’s] mental health is

not being treated effectively”—which is consistent with HHS reports about

behaviors like staring into space for minutes at a time during visits with the child.

After she was diagnosed with unspecified psychosis, the mother was prescribed

antipsychotic medication but did not consistently take it. Her engagement with

therapy was limited and recent to the termination trial. And she was arrested in

the month preceding trial for assaulting her sister.

The child has been diagnosed with semi-nonverbal autism and has some

special needs, including a need for additional supervision because she cannot 3

protect or advocate for herself. The child is doing well with the grandmother, she

has shown educational and developmental progress, and her needs are met. As

far as HHS was aware, the mother was not educated on issues related to children

with autism and had limited insight into the child’s needs.

Over the life of the case, the mother attended only about fifteen out of

ninety-eight visits with the child. Similarly, she attended only nine out of forty

casework sessions. During her involvement with the juvenile court, she has not

had a stable job or her own housing. In brief testimony at the termination trial, the

mother expressed that she thought she had “done great” addressing her mental

health and was “okay without [her] medicine.”

The county attorney, HHS, and the child’s guardian ad litem (GAL) all

recommended termination of parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the

mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (i),

and (k) (2025). She appeals, and we review de novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d

305, 312 (Iowa 2021).

As a threshold matter, our review of the mother’s petition on appeal is

constrained by two limitations: error preservation and failure to comply with the

rules of appellate procedure. As to the former, the petition includes passing

references to the mother’s bond with the child and the possibility of a guardianship

with the grandmother. But the mother did not clearly argue below—nor did she

obtain a ruling on—claims regarding these permissive exceptions. See Iowa Code

§ 232.116(3)(a), (c). These claims are unpreserved, and we address them no

further. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). As to the

second constraint, the deficiencies in the mother’s petition are so significant we 4

doubt the petition presents a cognizable claim. The petition does not meaningfully

cite any case law or the record, nor does it offer much if any analysis specific to

the case facts. We could find the entirety of the petition’s appellate arguments

waived, but we elect to briefly address the one claim arguably presented.1 See

Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d), .1401–Form 5; In re K.D., No. 21-0581, 2021

WL 3897419, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2021) (discussing these rules).

Very generously construing the petition, we discern an argument about best

interests. The petition contends “the [juvenile] court’s [termination of parental

rights] order did not make findings or state a conclusion regarding whether

termination was in the child’s best interests.” But this isn’t true. The juvenile court

ruled on page six of its order:

Giving primary consideration to the children’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, the Court concludes that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.

This tracks the statutory considerations. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). And we

agree with that conclusion on our de novo review: the mother put the child’s safety

in danger, and the child is doing well in the grandmother’s care. The mother has

made little if any meaningful progress over the life of the case, and the child

deserves and needs stability and permanency.

1 We note the petition does not challenge any of the grounds for termination, so

we do not address them. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).