In the Interest of K.R. and M.R., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: February 5, 2025
• Docket: 24-1951
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1951 Filed February 5, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF K.R. and M.R., Minor Children,

N.H., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt,

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Christina M. Shriver, Waterloo, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Kelly J. Smith, Juvenile Public Defenders Office, Waterloo, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

The district court terminated the parental rights of a mother and father to

two children, born in 2022 and 2023. Only the mother appeals, with her single

challenge being the statutory grounds relied on by the district court for termination

of her parental rights.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

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

Human Services (HHS) in October 2022 following the birth of the oldest child, K.R.

The mother admitted using methamphetamine during her pregnancy and tested

positive for methamphetamine at the time of K.R.’s birth. K.R. was born early at

thirty-one weeks gestation, testing positive for methamphetamine, and weighing

just three pounds. After a stay in the neonatal intensive care unit, K.R. was placed

with her paternal grandmother through a safety plan.

But the safety plan did not go well. The parents minimally complied with

voluntary services, and the grandmother refused to allow the HHS workers access

to K.R., permitting the workers to view the child only through a storm door. The

parents engaged in domestic violence in front of the child, and the mother was

verbally threatening and aggressive toward HHS workers. Both parents were non-

compliant with the safety plan. The court adjudicated K.R. as a child in need of

assistance (CINA) and formally removed the child from parental custody. The

disposition order continued removal of the child from the parents, with custody

remaining with HHS for relative placement. After both the grandmother and the 3

child tested positive for methamphetamine, the State sought modification of the

dispositional order, and the child was moved to foster care in late December 2023.1

That same month, the mother gave birth to M.R. The mother tested positive

for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana. The baby was also positive

for methamphetamine and amphetamine. M.R. was removed from parental

custody and placed in foster care with her sibling. She was later adjudicated to be

CINA.

The district court deferred permanency at the request of the parties and

HHS in February 2024.2 But without improvements or progress by either parent,

the State moved to terminate the parents’ rights in July 2024. By the termination

hearing, the mother had been requested to submit to fifty-three drug screens but

participated in none of those tests. While the mother eventually completed a

substance-use evaluation in January 2024 and a mental-health evaluation in

February 2024, she did not follow through with the recommendations for treatment.

All of the mother’s visits remained fully supervised, with the mother missing about

1 The State had sought modification of the placement of K.R. after the grandmother

refused to allow access to the child, appeared to be allowing unsupervised contact between the father and child, and threatened to move to avoid HHS. After the grandmother provided assurances of compliance with HHS expectations, the court continued placement of K.R. with the grandmother. 2 The district court’s termination order noted,

It appears the Court deferred permanency based upon largely what turned out to be lies from the parents. The parents promised to participate in drug testing and obtain substance abuse and mental health evaluations and comply with any recommendations. They promised to attend all visits. In short, they promised the Court they would change their lives and work hard at trying to regain custody. A review of the results since that time shows that they have failed miserably in their attempts to make any changes. In fact, the Court would argue that they have regressed. 4

half of her scheduled visits. At the time of the termination hearing, the location of

the mother’s residence and who else she may have been residing with was in

question. Following an evidentiary hearing where the sole witness was the HHS

case manager, the district court terminated the parents’ rights. The mother

appeals.

II. Standard of Review

We conduct de novo review of orders terminating parental rights. In re Z.K.,

973 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022). We will uphold an order terminating parental

rights where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for

termination. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Evidence is clear and

convincing when there is no serious or substantial doubt as to the correctness of

the conclusions of law drawn from the evidence. Id.

III. Analysis

Our review follows a three-step process that involves determining whether

a statutory ground for termination has been established, whether termination is in

the children’s best interests, and whether any permissive exceptions should be

applied to preclude termination. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021). But

if a parent does not challenge a step in our analysis, we need not address it. In re

J.P., No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020). And when

the district court orders termination of parental rights on more than one statutory

ground, we need only find grounds to terminate on one of the paragraphs to affirm.

In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703, 704 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014).

Because the mother only challenges the statutory grounds, we limit our

review to this single issue. The district court terminated the mother’s parental 5

rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2024). We choose to

address the termination under section 232.116(1)(h). Section 232.116(1)(h)

permits termination upon clear and convincing proof that (1) “[t]he child is three

years of age or younger”; (2) “[t]he child has been adjudicated a child in need of

assistance”; (3) the child has been removed from the physical custody of the

parents for at least six of the last twelve months; and (4) the child cannot be

returned to the custody of the parent.

The mother only challenges the fourth element on appeal—whether the

children could have been safely returned to her custody at the time of the

termination hearing. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4); In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100,

112 (Iowa 2014) (noting “at the present time” means at the time of the termination

hearing). On our de novo review of this record, we, like the district court, conclude

the children could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the

termination hearing. The mother has not addressed the concerns that brought this

family to the attention of HHS nearly two years before the termination hearing. Her

unaddressed substance-use and untreated mental-health issues prevent the

children from being safely returned to her custody at the time of the termination

hearing. And as the district court noted, the children could not be safely returned

to the mother without the knowledge of where she is living and with whom she

resides.

IV. Conclusion

As clear and convincing evidence supports a ground relied on by the district

court for termination of the mother’s parental rights, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.