IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-0940 Filed September 4, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF M.A., Minor Child,
A.A., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Gary P. Strausser,
Judge.
A mother appeals a bridge modification order entered in a child-in-need-of-
assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED.
Jeannette Keller of Bowman, DePree & Murphy, West Liberty, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Mark J. Neary, Iowa City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and
Sandy, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
A mother appeals a bridge modification order entered in a child-in-need-of-
assistance (CINA) proceeding and transferring jurisdiction over custody and care
of her child to the district court. She challenges (1) the juvenile court’s efforts to
reunite her with her child prior to the entry of the bridge modification order and
(2) the portion of the order placing the child in the father’s physical and sole legal
custody, as well as the conditions placed on her visitation with the child. Upon our
review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In early 2024, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
learned that the mother was using methamphetamine in the home she shared with
her ten-year-old son, M.A. HHS also became aware that the mother’s roommate
was selling methamphetamine from the residence. The mother agreed to a safety
plan that placed the child in his father’s physical care until she completed drug
testing, but she soon withdrew from the safety plan and refused drug testing. As
a result, the juvenile court removed M.A. from the mother’s custody and placed
him in the father’s physical care subject to HHS supervision. After a hearing in
March 2024, the court adjudicated M.A. a CINA.
Throughout the CINA proceedings, the mother has struggled with mental-
health and substance-use issues. From January through September, the mother
failed to attend drug testing on seven occasions. On five occasions, she tested
positive for marijuana, amphetamines, and methamphetamine.
After an October permanency hearing, the juvenile court entered an order
finding HHS had made reasonable efforts at reunification and the child remaining 3
“in the custody of the mother is contrary to the welfare of the child and is not in the
child’s best interests.” The juvenile court changed the permanency goal to placing
the child with the father. The parties agreed that the permanency goal was to be
accomplished by bridge modification order.
On November 22, 2024, the mother filed notice to the juvenile court that she
was withdrawing her agreement to the entry of a bridge modification order and
asked the juvenile court to close the CINA case. At a contested hearing, the
juvenile court heard testimony from the mother, the father, the HHS worker, and
the mother’s mental-health caseworker.
After hearings in December 2024 and January 2025, the juvenile court
entered a bridge modification order, granting the father sole legal custody and
physical care of M.A. The court granted the mother not less than four hours per
week of supervised visitation, which would become unsupervised if the mother
completed substance-use treatment. The mother now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review CINA proceedings de novo and, in doing so, give weight to the
juvenile court’s fact findings even though we are not bound by them. In re D.D.,
955 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Iowa 2021). Our primary concern is the child’s best
interests. Id.
III. Reasonable Efforts
We start our review by addressing the mother’s challenge to the court’s
reasonable-efforts finding. In this case’s context, reasonable efforts are “the efforts
made to . . . eliminate the need for removal of the child or make it possible for the
child to safely return to the [mother]’s home.” Iowa Code § 232.102A(1)(a) (2024). 4
The reasonable-efforts mandate requires HHS to make every reasonable effort to
return children to the home as soon as possible consistent with the children’s best
interests. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). This mandate focuses on
services to improve parenting, which includes visitation. Id. HHS must evaluate
the reasonable efforts it is obligated to provide based on the circumstances of the
case. See In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa 2000).
The child’s guardian ad-litem and the State contest that the mother has
preserved error regarding the juvenile court’s finding that a bridge modification
order was appropriate because the mother did not appeal the permanency order.
Regardless, our review of the record shows HHS made reasonable efforts to
eliminate the need for removal. The mother has both mental-health and
substance-use issues. The mother has made some progress in addressing her
mental-health concerns through counseling and medication. Despite this, there
have been several incidents throughout this case where visits with M.A. have been
cancelled due to the mother being aggressive towards providers. Further, the
mother has failed to address her substance-use issues. Throughout this case, the
mother has consistently refused drug testing and tested positive on those
occasions she complied. Although HHS has offered the mother services to
address her substance use and mental health, she consistently refused them or
attempted to delay her participation. Based on these circumstances, we agree
with the juvenile court’s determination that HHS made reasonable efforts toward
reunification. 5
IV. Bridge Modification Order
We turn next to the mother’s challenge to the terms of the bridge
modification order. A bridge modification order returns “jurisdiction over the child’s
custody, physical care, and visitation to the district court” and closes a CINA case
when certain criteria have been met. Iowa Code § 232.103A(1). The mother
contends the bridge modification order entered in this case (1) erroneously granted
the father sole legal and physical care of the child and (2) unduly restricted contact
between the mother and child. She does not claim the statutory criteria for the
imposition of a bridge have not been met. See id. § 232.103B. So, we limit our
review to the conditions of the bridge modification order. See In re B.C., No. 24-
1069, 2024 WL 4620164, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2024) (declining to address
the statutory conditions for entry of a bridge modification order when no challenge
is made to those conditions).
A. Legal and Physical care
First, the mother contends the terms of the bridge modification order, which
changed the parents’ legal relationships with the child from joint legal custody and
joint physical care to the father having sole legal custody and physical care, are
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-0940 Filed September 4, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF M.A., Minor Child,
A.A., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Gary P. Strausser,
Judge.
A mother appeals a bridge modification order entered in a child-in-need-of-
assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED.
Jeannette Keller of Bowman, DePree & Murphy, West Liberty, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Mark J. Neary, Iowa City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and
Sandy, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
A mother appeals a bridge modification order entered in a child-in-need-of-
assistance (CINA) proceeding and transferring jurisdiction over custody and care
of her child to the district court. She challenges (1) the juvenile court’s efforts to
reunite her with her child prior to the entry of the bridge modification order and
(2) the portion of the order placing the child in the father’s physical and sole legal
custody, as well as the conditions placed on her visitation with the child. Upon our
review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In early 2024, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
learned that the mother was using methamphetamine in the home she shared with
her ten-year-old son, M.A. HHS also became aware that the mother’s roommate
was selling methamphetamine from the residence. The mother agreed to a safety
plan that placed the child in his father’s physical care until she completed drug
testing, but she soon withdrew from the safety plan and refused drug testing. As
a result, the juvenile court removed M.A. from the mother’s custody and placed
him in the father’s physical care subject to HHS supervision. After a hearing in
March 2024, the court adjudicated M.A. a CINA.
Throughout the CINA proceedings, the mother has struggled with mental-
health and substance-use issues. From January through September, the mother
failed to attend drug testing on seven occasions. On five occasions, she tested
positive for marijuana, amphetamines, and methamphetamine.
After an October permanency hearing, the juvenile court entered an order
finding HHS had made reasonable efforts at reunification and the child remaining 3
“in the custody of the mother is contrary to the welfare of the child and is not in the
child’s best interests.” The juvenile court changed the permanency goal to placing
the child with the father. The parties agreed that the permanency goal was to be
accomplished by bridge modification order.
On November 22, 2024, the mother filed notice to the juvenile court that she
was withdrawing her agreement to the entry of a bridge modification order and
asked the juvenile court to close the CINA case. At a contested hearing, the
juvenile court heard testimony from the mother, the father, the HHS worker, and
the mother’s mental-health caseworker.
After hearings in December 2024 and January 2025, the juvenile court
entered a bridge modification order, granting the father sole legal custody and
physical care of M.A. The court granted the mother not less than four hours per
week of supervised visitation, which would become unsupervised if the mother
completed substance-use treatment. The mother now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review CINA proceedings de novo and, in doing so, give weight to the
juvenile court’s fact findings even though we are not bound by them. In re D.D.,
955 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Iowa 2021). Our primary concern is the child’s best
interests. Id.
III. Reasonable Efforts
We start our review by addressing the mother’s challenge to the court’s
reasonable-efforts finding. In this case’s context, reasonable efforts are “the efforts
made to . . . eliminate the need for removal of the child or make it possible for the
child to safely return to the [mother]’s home.” Iowa Code § 232.102A(1)(a) (2024). 4
The reasonable-efforts mandate requires HHS to make every reasonable effort to
return children to the home as soon as possible consistent with the children’s best
interests. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). This mandate focuses on
services to improve parenting, which includes visitation. Id. HHS must evaluate
the reasonable efforts it is obligated to provide based on the circumstances of the
case. See In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa 2000).
The child’s guardian ad-litem and the State contest that the mother has
preserved error regarding the juvenile court’s finding that a bridge modification
order was appropriate because the mother did not appeal the permanency order.
Regardless, our review of the record shows HHS made reasonable efforts to
eliminate the need for removal. The mother has both mental-health and
substance-use issues. The mother has made some progress in addressing her
mental-health concerns through counseling and medication. Despite this, there
have been several incidents throughout this case where visits with M.A. have been
cancelled due to the mother being aggressive towards providers. Further, the
mother has failed to address her substance-use issues. Throughout this case, the
mother has consistently refused drug testing and tested positive on those
occasions she complied. Although HHS has offered the mother services to
address her substance use and mental health, she consistently refused them or
attempted to delay her participation. Based on these circumstances, we agree
with the juvenile court’s determination that HHS made reasonable efforts toward
reunification. 5
IV. Bridge Modification Order
We turn next to the mother’s challenge to the terms of the bridge
modification order. A bridge modification order returns “jurisdiction over the child’s
custody, physical care, and visitation to the district court” and closes a CINA case
when certain criteria have been met. Iowa Code § 232.103A(1). The mother
contends the bridge modification order entered in this case (1) erroneously granted
the father sole legal and physical care of the child and (2) unduly restricted contact
between the mother and child. She does not claim the statutory criteria for the
imposition of a bridge have not been met. See id. § 232.103B. So, we limit our
review to the conditions of the bridge modification order. See In re B.C., No. 24-
1069, 2024 WL 4620164, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2024) (declining to address
the statutory conditions for entry of a bridge modification order when no challenge
is made to those conditions).
A. Legal and Physical care
First, the mother contends the terms of the bridge modification order, which
changed the parents’ legal relationships with the child from joint legal custody and
joint physical care to the father having sole legal custody and physical care, are
not in the child’s best interests.
Our overriding consideration in determining custody and physical care
issues is the child’s best interests. See In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d
97, 101 (Iowa 2007); Iowa Code § 598.41(3); see also In re Marriage of Winter,
223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974) (setting forth factors guiding the court in
addition to those identified in Iowa Code section 598.41(3)). 6
We agree with the juvenile court’s decision to grant the father sole legal
custody and physical care of the child. The evidence supporting that decision
include the mother’s failure to adequately address her substance use and her
inability to recognize the detrimental effect that her methamphetamine use has on
her child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(a) (outlining best interests of the child
include “[w]hether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child”).
Further, the father has provided a stable and safe home for the child. Changing
the custodial arrangement would be psychologically and emotionally harmful to the
child. See id. § 598.41(3)(b).
After taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, we agree with the
juvenile court that the CINA proceedings could safely close by entering a bridge
modification order. The only impediment to closure of the CINA proceedings is the
mother’s instability. The negative impact of that instability was curbed by the terms
of the bridge modification order. As a result, we also agree that it is in the child’s
best interests to give the father sole legal custody and physical care of the child.
B. Visitation
Second, the mother argues that the terms of the bridge modification order
unnecessarily restrict her time with the child. The bridge modification order
granted the mother “not less than [four] hours per week” of supervised visitation.
The parents mutually agreed on the supervisors for the mother’s visits. Further,
the court granted the mother progressive visitation, allowing unsupervised visits if
the mother completed substance-use treatment. “[T]he nature and extent of
visitation is always controlled by the best interests of the child.” In re M.B., 553
N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). 7
We find that M.A.’s best interests are served by the visitation arrangement
established by the juvenile court. There are concerns about the child’s safety and
well-being if visits with the mother are unsupervised. The mother argues she
should be granted additional unsupervised visits after two months of clean drug
testing. But we share the concerns the juvenile court expressed about the
mother’s continued unaddressed substance-use issues. See In re S.R., 600
N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). If the mother completes substance-use
treatment, she will be granted unsupervised visitation. Given the mother’s history
of substance use and her evasion of drug testing during the pendency of this case,
we agree with the juvenile court that it is in the child’s best interests to require that
the mother complete substance-use treatment before she is allowed unsupervised
visitation.
V. Disposition
We affirm the issuance of a bridge modification order granting the father
sole legal custody and physical care, as well as the visitation restrictions imposed
by the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.