IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0423 Filed July 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF K.F., Minor Child,
A.F., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul J. Crawford,
Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Norma J. Meade of Moore, McKibben, Goodman & Lorenz, LLP,
Marshalltown, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Mary Cowdrey of Public Defender’s Office, Marshalltown, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024). 2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her not yet two-
year-old child. She contends the State failed to prove the statutory ground for
termination and failed to make reasonable efforts in her case. We find no merit in
either claim, so we affirm.
I. Background facts and proceedings
This case began in March 2023 when the Department of Health and Human
Services investigated the maternal grandmother for allegations of drug use while
caring for her teenage daughter. The mother and her child, K.F., also lived with
the maternal grandmother at the time, and further allegations arose that the mother
was using drugs while caring for K.F. The mother admitted to using
methamphetamine and agreed to a voluntary placement of K.F. with a foster
family.1
Since then, the mother has struggled to engage in services to treat her
substance-use issues. A substance-use evaluation recommended that she attend
outpatient treatment groups until space became available in a residential treatment
facility. The mother did not attend the outpatient program consistently. In June,
the mother entered an inpatient program but left the next day complaining that
orientation overwhelmed her. The next month she started outpatient treatment
again but did not attend consistently. In October she began outpatient treatment
again but this time withdrew a previous informational release so the department
could not track her progress. That same month she overdosed on heroin and was
1 The putative father of K.F. had minimal involvement in the case. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights, and he does not appeal. 3
treated at the hospital. In December, she entered a thirty-day residential treatment
facility and was successfully discharged. But providers reported her participation
wasn’t consistent while she was there. Within days of completion, she used
methamphetamine again. The mother also gave many positive drug tests or failed
to appear for drug tests throughout the proceedings.
Her attendance and performance at visitation were also inconsistent, and
were exacerbated when the mother committed felony probation violations, and had
multiple arrests and stints in jail. Providers and the foster parents reported the
mother appeared intoxicated during some in-person and video visits. And the
department suspended her visits while she had active warrants out for her arrest.
The State petitioned for termination of the mother’s parental rights in
December 2023. The court held a joint permanency and termination-of-parental-
rights hearing in February 2024. At the hearing, it was established the mother had
admitted recently using methamphetamine on January 26 and 28, and she testified
to last using methamphetamine three days before the hearing. The juvenile court
found grounds for termination were supported under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h) (2023). The mother appeals.
II. Standard of review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311,
313 (Iowa 2022). We respect the juvenile court’s fact findings, especially when
they rest on witness credibility. In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998).
But we are not bound by them. Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of
the child. Id. 4
III. Analysis
Termination requires clear and convincing evidence of three analytical
steps. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706–07 (Iowa 2010). We determine
whether termination is warranted under statutory grounds, if termination is in the
child’s best interests, and if a statutory exception applies to preclude termination.
In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022). On appeal, we need not address
any step the parent does not challenge. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa
2010).
A. Statutory Grounds for Termination
The court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h).2 She contends the State failed to show that K.F. could not be
returned to her custody at the time of the hearing. See Iowa Code § 232.116(h)(4);
see also In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016) (requiring proof of statutory
grounds by clear and convincing evidence). She argues that because she was
about to return to an inpatient treatment program that allows children to be placed
2 To find termination appropriate under paragraph (h), the court must find all the
following supported by clear and convincing evidence: (1) The child is three years of age or younger. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). 5
with their parents, the State didn’t prove the child could not be returned to her
custody.
We disagree. At the termination hearing, the mother was not in the
treatment program, she was waiting for admission, so she could not resume
custody “at the present time,” as the statute requires. Iowa Code § 232.116(h)(4);
see In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 474 (Iowa 2018) (holding “at the present time” in
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4) to mean the time of the termination hearing). And
placing a child with a parent in a supervised treatment program is different from
the parent resuming legal custody of the child.3 The mother was still actively
addicted to drugs and had used methamphetamine just days before the
termination trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0423 Filed July 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF K.F., Minor Child,
A.F., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul J. Crawford,
Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Norma J. Meade of Moore, McKibben, Goodman & Lorenz, LLP,
Marshalltown, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Mary Cowdrey of Public Defender’s Office, Marshalltown, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024). 2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her not yet two-
year-old child. She contends the State failed to prove the statutory ground for
termination and failed to make reasonable efforts in her case. We find no merit in
either claim, so we affirm.
I. Background facts and proceedings
This case began in March 2023 when the Department of Health and Human
Services investigated the maternal grandmother for allegations of drug use while
caring for her teenage daughter. The mother and her child, K.F., also lived with
the maternal grandmother at the time, and further allegations arose that the mother
was using drugs while caring for K.F. The mother admitted to using
methamphetamine and agreed to a voluntary placement of K.F. with a foster
family.1
Since then, the mother has struggled to engage in services to treat her
substance-use issues. A substance-use evaluation recommended that she attend
outpatient treatment groups until space became available in a residential treatment
facility. The mother did not attend the outpatient program consistently. In June,
the mother entered an inpatient program but left the next day complaining that
orientation overwhelmed her. The next month she started outpatient treatment
again but did not attend consistently. In October she began outpatient treatment
again but this time withdrew a previous informational release so the department
could not track her progress. That same month she overdosed on heroin and was
1 The putative father of K.F. had minimal involvement in the case. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights, and he does not appeal. 3
treated at the hospital. In December, she entered a thirty-day residential treatment
facility and was successfully discharged. But providers reported her participation
wasn’t consistent while she was there. Within days of completion, she used
methamphetamine again. The mother also gave many positive drug tests or failed
to appear for drug tests throughout the proceedings.
Her attendance and performance at visitation were also inconsistent, and
were exacerbated when the mother committed felony probation violations, and had
multiple arrests and stints in jail. Providers and the foster parents reported the
mother appeared intoxicated during some in-person and video visits. And the
department suspended her visits while she had active warrants out for her arrest.
The State petitioned for termination of the mother’s parental rights in
December 2023. The court held a joint permanency and termination-of-parental-
rights hearing in February 2024. At the hearing, it was established the mother had
admitted recently using methamphetamine on January 26 and 28, and she testified
to last using methamphetamine three days before the hearing. The juvenile court
found grounds for termination were supported under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h) (2023). The mother appeals.
II. Standard of review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311,
313 (Iowa 2022). We respect the juvenile court’s fact findings, especially when
they rest on witness credibility. In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998).
But we are not bound by them. Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of
the child. Id. 4
III. Analysis
Termination requires clear and convincing evidence of three analytical
steps. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706–07 (Iowa 2010). We determine
whether termination is warranted under statutory grounds, if termination is in the
child’s best interests, and if a statutory exception applies to preclude termination.
In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022). On appeal, we need not address
any step the parent does not challenge. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa
2010).
A. Statutory Grounds for Termination
The court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h).2 She contends the State failed to show that K.F. could not be
returned to her custody at the time of the hearing. See Iowa Code § 232.116(h)(4);
see also In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016) (requiring proof of statutory
grounds by clear and convincing evidence). She argues that because she was
about to return to an inpatient treatment program that allows children to be placed
2 To find termination appropriate under paragraph (h), the court must find all the
following supported by clear and convincing evidence: (1) The child is three years of age or younger. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). 5
with their parents, the State didn’t prove the child could not be returned to her
custody.
We disagree. At the termination hearing, the mother was not in the
treatment program, she was waiting for admission, so she could not resume
custody “at the present time,” as the statute requires. Iowa Code § 232.116(h)(4);
see In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 474 (Iowa 2018) (holding “at the present time” in
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4) to mean the time of the termination hearing). And
placing a child with a parent in a supervised treatment program is different from
the parent resuming legal custody of the child.3 The mother was still actively
addicted to drugs and had used methamphetamine just days before the
termination trial. In addition, there were issues with housing, finances, and her
lack of employment. The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that K.F.
could not be returned to her custody.
B. Reasonable Efforts
The mother next contends the department failed to make reasonable efforts
to reunite her with her child. See In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002)
(“The State must make reasonable efforts to provide services to a parent before
termination proceedings may be instituted.”). She complains the department failed
to provide her visitation while she had active warrants, causing her to miss visits.
And she asserts the department failed to provide SafeCare curriculum for her.
The State responds, and we agree, that the mother failed to preserve error
on her claims, so we do not address them. See id. at 148 (finding a parent waives
3 The mother did not argue that admission to the program was a reason to give her
extra time to work toward reunification under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b). 6
reasonable-efforts challenges by failing to timely request more or different
services). In her error-preservation statement on this issue, the mother asserts
she preserved error by raising the deficiency at the termination trial, but that is
expressly too late. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493–94 (Iowa 2000) (“[The
parent] . . . did not object to other reunification efforts by the [department] until the
termination proceeding. We have repeatedly emphasized the importance for a
parent to object to services early in the process so appropriate changes can be
made.”).
Finding no grounds that merit reversal, we affirm the termination of the
mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.