IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-0161 Filed April 9, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF K.Q., Minor Child,
K.Q., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and
Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, K.Q.,
born in 2023.1 Upon our review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (“the department”)
became involved with this family at birth after K.Q. and the mother tested positive
for amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, and benzoylecgonine. As a result,
K.Q. experienced “significant” withdrawal symptoms while in the hospital. The
mother did not take the hospital’s concerns about K.Q. seriously, “mak[ing]
sarcastic jokes about cocaine not being a drug you can experience withdrawal
symptoms from.” The juvenile court removed K.Q. from the mother’s custody and
placed her with the father. But when the child tested positive a second time after
being exposed to and even ingesting illegal substances, she was removed again
and placed with her maternal uncle.
While the mother tried to address the department’s concerns about her
substance use, she struggled to remain sober. Despite numerous positive drug
tests, including while pregnant, the mother consistently denied any drug use.2
When the department tried to engage with the mother regarding her substance
1 The father’s parental rights to K.Q. were also terminated.But because he does not appeal, we do not address him further except to note his role as the child’s placement. 2 The mother admitted she used Suboxone as prescribed through a
medication-assisted treatment program, which she claimed created a “false positive” for illegal substances. The mother also had an Iowa medical cannabidiol registration card, which permitted her to consume cannabidiol products for medical use. See Iowa Code § 124E.4 (2024). Because both were prescribed, the department was focused on her illegal drug use. 3
use, she became “combative and argumentative,” using extremely offensive
language and denying she would ever use methamphetamine. And even when
she finally admitted to using daily and agreed to treatment, she could not meet
expectations. Throughout the proceedings, the mother attempted three separate
inpatient programs; each time, she voluntarily left or was unsuccessfully
discharged. These inpatient stays ranged from only seven days to over a month
at the longest. When the mother was not residing in treatment, she was often
incarcerated. As of the termination hearing, the mother still had pending
child-endangerment charges for exposing K.Q. to methamphetamine. This
impacted her ability to engage in services, such as visitation, because “she was
moving in and out of programs [and jail] so quickly [the department] could not
always keep up.” When the mother did maintain contact with K.Q., the department
described the two as having “a strong bond.” But the mother never progressed to
unsupervised visits because she could not maintain her sobriety despite
exhausting multiple inpatient and extensive outpatient options.
In January 2025, a termination hearing occurred, in which the department
caseworker testified that K.Q. was thriving in her placement. Despite having some
developmental delays, the caseworker confirmed that K.Q.’s uncle is a preadoptive
option and able to meet the child’s specific medical and emotional needs. While
the mother requested that the court delay permanency and place K.Q. in a
guardianship, the juvenile court disagreed. Instead, it terminated the mother’s
parental rights to K.Q. so she could be adopted. The mother appeals. 4
II. Review.
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. See In re
W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 322 (Iowa 2021). “We are not bound by the factual findings
of the juvenile court, but we give them weight, particularly regarding credibility
determinations.” Id.
III. Discussion.
Because the mother does not challenge the grounds for termination, we
“limit our review to the specific claims presented.” See In re K.W., No. 23-1884,
2024 WL 1757377, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2024). The mother only
challenges the juvenile court’s finding that a guardianship is not in the child’s best
interests and asks us to apply a permissive exception to termination. We consider
each argument in turn.
A. Guardianship.
The mother first contends that it is in K.Q.’s best interests to defer
permanency and place her in a guardianship with the child’s maternal uncle. See
Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(d)(2) (permitting the court to “[t]ransfer guardianship and
custody of the child” in lieu of terminating parental rights). To determine whether
guardianship is in a child’s best interests, we consider “the child’s age, the length
of the removal, the viability of other permanency options, and the relationship
between the parent and guardian.” In re G.S., No. 23-0902, 2023 WL 5092545,
at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023). The juvenile court found that a guardianship
would not provide K.Q. with the permanency she needs. Instead, adoption would
protect her from further drug exposure by allowing her adoptive parents to regulate 5
contact with her biological parents. It also would give K.Q. access to subsidized
medical care, which it found is “likely” necessary given her developmental delays.
Lastly, the court found that the mother had not adequately addressed any
of the department’s central concerns, particularly her substance use. At one point,
the juvenile court described the mother’s progress as “non-existent despite her
many attempts and cooperation with services.” When terminating her rights, the
court concluded that the mother “wants to quit using drugs, but “her prognosis is
poor.”
Upon our own review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court. We
find that termination, not guardianship, is in K.Q.’s best interests because it affords
her the permanency she deserves. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 474
(Iowa 2018) (“It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of
permanency . . . by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able
to provide a stable home for the child.” (cleaned up)). “A guardianship does not
provide the same level of stability and safety for a child as termination of parental
rights and adoption because a guardianship is not permanent.” In re V.W.,
No. 24-0983, 2024 WL 4394433, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2024). At the time of
termination, K.Q.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-0161 Filed April 9, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF K.Q., Minor Child,
K.Q., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and
Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, K.Q.,
born in 2023.1 Upon our review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (“the department”)
became involved with this family at birth after K.Q. and the mother tested positive
for amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, and benzoylecgonine. As a result,
K.Q. experienced “significant” withdrawal symptoms while in the hospital. The
mother did not take the hospital’s concerns about K.Q. seriously, “mak[ing]
sarcastic jokes about cocaine not being a drug you can experience withdrawal
symptoms from.” The juvenile court removed K.Q. from the mother’s custody and
placed her with the father. But when the child tested positive a second time after
being exposed to and even ingesting illegal substances, she was removed again
and placed with her maternal uncle.
While the mother tried to address the department’s concerns about her
substance use, she struggled to remain sober. Despite numerous positive drug
tests, including while pregnant, the mother consistently denied any drug use.2
When the department tried to engage with the mother regarding her substance
1 The father’s parental rights to K.Q. were also terminated.But because he does not appeal, we do not address him further except to note his role as the child’s placement. 2 The mother admitted she used Suboxone as prescribed through a
medication-assisted treatment program, which she claimed created a “false positive” for illegal substances. The mother also had an Iowa medical cannabidiol registration card, which permitted her to consume cannabidiol products for medical use. See Iowa Code § 124E.4 (2024). Because both were prescribed, the department was focused on her illegal drug use. 3
use, she became “combative and argumentative,” using extremely offensive
language and denying she would ever use methamphetamine. And even when
she finally admitted to using daily and agreed to treatment, she could not meet
expectations. Throughout the proceedings, the mother attempted three separate
inpatient programs; each time, she voluntarily left or was unsuccessfully
discharged. These inpatient stays ranged from only seven days to over a month
at the longest. When the mother was not residing in treatment, she was often
incarcerated. As of the termination hearing, the mother still had pending
child-endangerment charges for exposing K.Q. to methamphetamine. This
impacted her ability to engage in services, such as visitation, because “she was
moving in and out of programs [and jail] so quickly [the department] could not
always keep up.” When the mother did maintain contact with K.Q., the department
described the two as having “a strong bond.” But the mother never progressed to
unsupervised visits because she could not maintain her sobriety despite
exhausting multiple inpatient and extensive outpatient options.
In January 2025, a termination hearing occurred, in which the department
caseworker testified that K.Q. was thriving in her placement. Despite having some
developmental delays, the caseworker confirmed that K.Q.’s uncle is a preadoptive
option and able to meet the child’s specific medical and emotional needs. While
the mother requested that the court delay permanency and place K.Q. in a
guardianship, the juvenile court disagreed. Instead, it terminated the mother’s
parental rights to K.Q. so she could be adopted. The mother appeals. 4
II. Review.
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. See In re
W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 322 (Iowa 2021). “We are not bound by the factual findings
of the juvenile court, but we give them weight, particularly regarding credibility
determinations.” Id.
III. Discussion.
Because the mother does not challenge the grounds for termination, we
“limit our review to the specific claims presented.” See In re K.W., No. 23-1884,
2024 WL 1757377, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2024). The mother only
challenges the juvenile court’s finding that a guardianship is not in the child’s best
interests and asks us to apply a permissive exception to termination. We consider
each argument in turn.
A. Guardianship.
The mother first contends that it is in K.Q.’s best interests to defer
permanency and place her in a guardianship with the child’s maternal uncle. See
Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(d)(2) (permitting the court to “[t]ransfer guardianship and
custody of the child” in lieu of terminating parental rights). To determine whether
guardianship is in a child’s best interests, we consider “the child’s age, the length
of the removal, the viability of other permanency options, and the relationship
between the parent and guardian.” In re G.S., No. 23-0902, 2023 WL 5092545,
at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023). The juvenile court found that a guardianship
would not provide K.Q. with the permanency she needs. Instead, adoption would
protect her from further drug exposure by allowing her adoptive parents to regulate 5
contact with her biological parents. It also would give K.Q. access to subsidized
medical care, which it found is “likely” necessary given her developmental delays.
Lastly, the court found that the mother had not adequately addressed any
of the department’s central concerns, particularly her substance use. At one point,
the juvenile court described the mother’s progress as “non-existent despite her
many attempts and cooperation with services.” When terminating her rights, the
court concluded that the mother “wants to quit using drugs, but “her prognosis is
poor.”
Upon our own review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court. We
find that termination, not guardianship, is in K.Q.’s best interests because it affords
her the permanency she deserves. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 474
(Iowa 2018) (“It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of
permanency . . . by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able
to provide a stable home for the child.” (cleaned up)). “A guardianship does not
provide the same level of stability and safety for a child as termination of parental
rights and adoption because a guardianship is not permanent.” In re V.W.,
No. 24-0983, 2024 WL 4394433, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2024). At the time of
termination, K.Q. was not even two years old, so a guardianship could last sixteen
years. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 478 (considering the child’s tender age when
declining to establish a guardianship). Further, because the mother has not
established herself as a safe parent or maintained her sobriety, we are not
convinced that delaying permanency is for K.Q.’s benefit. G.S., 2023 WL 5092545,
at *3 (considering the parent’s “lack of any substantial progress” in declining a
guardianship). We therefore place the child’s “permanency and stability needs” 6
over that of the mother’s and affirm termination of parental rights. In re C.D.,
509 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
B. Permissive Exception to Termination.
Finally, the mother requests us to grant an exception to termination based
on her parent-child bond. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c) (permitting the court to
decline to terminate when “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the
termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship”). The State argues in response that the mother failed
to preserve error on this issue because her counsel never argued that an exception
was warranted. See In re J.R., No. 24-0942, 2025 WL 52738, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
Jan. 9, 2025) (applying error-preservation principles to waive a parent’s
permissive-exception argument). After a thorough review of the record, we agree.
But even if the mother had preserved error, it was her burden to establish
“that, on balance, [their] bond makes termination more detrimental than not.” In re
W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 315 (Iowa 2021). While the record supports the mother
and the child did share a close bond, the mother makes no more than a passing
argument that K.Q. would “be disadvantaged by termination.” In re D.W.,
791 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010). In fact, as we have previously discussed,
termination is in K.Q.’s best interests. This finding cannot be overcome when we
consider the child’s need for permanency and the mother’s current inability to meet
K.Q.’s needs. See id. Accordingly, even if error was preserved, we would still
decline to apply a permissive exception. 7
IV. Disposition.
Because we find that a guardianship is not in K.Q.’s best interests and the
mother’s permissive-exception argument is waived, we affirm termination of her
parental rights.