In the Interest of M.S., Minor Child

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1716 Filed February 19, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF M.S., Minor Child,

N.S., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.

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

Colin McCormack of Van Cleaf & McCormack Law Firm, LLP, Des Moines,

for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Kaitlyn C. Willms of DiMaria Law P.L.L.C., West Des Moines, (until

withdrawal) and Deborah M. Skelton, Pleasant Hill, attorney and guardian ad litem

for minor child.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2

BADDING, Judge.

After a decade of using methamphetamine, a mother who was fifty days

sober appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child—born in

January 2024—under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (g), and (h) (2024). We

affirm upon our de novo review of the record. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313

(Iowa 2022).

Although we generally use a three-step analysis in our review, the mother

only challenges the first step: whether the State established a ground for

termination by clear and convincing evidence. Id. So we confine our review to

that step, see In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010), concentrating on

section 232.116(1)(h), see In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (stating

termination may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record).

On that ground, the mother argues that she was “actively engaged in

substance abuse treatment at the time of the trial in this case at an inpatient facility

that permits mothers to live with their children.” She accordingly contends the child

could have safely been returned to her custody while she completed treatment.

See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4) (requiring the State to prove by “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”); D.W., 791 N.W.2d at

707 (interpreting the statutory language “at the present time” to mean “at the time

of the termination hearing”). Yet at the termination hearing, the mother agreed

with her attorney that she was not asking for the child to be returned to her custody

that day. She testified: “I’m going to treatment, I’m bettering myself, and I’m trying

to make myself a better mother by taking my parenting classes,” and “I want to be 3

able to . . . multitask all these things and get them done so I can be in a better

place for her.” While she worked towards that goal, the mother believed that it was

best for the child to stay with the foster parents, who had adopted the mother’s two

older children.

We commend the mother for her insight and progress towards sobriety. But

her concession at the termination hearing amounted to clear and convincing

evidence supporting termination under section 232.116(1)(h). See In re D.C., 24-

1792, 2025 WL 401965, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2025) (concluding that a “trial

concession on the only element contested on appeal” is a basis to summarily affirm

a statutory ground for termination); In re K.A., No. 24-0287, 2024 WL 1757403, at

*2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2024) (finding clear and convincing evidence supported

termination where the mother acknowledged her incarceration as of the hearing

date prevented the return of her child); In re A.S., No. 22-1249, 2023 WL 382299,

at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2023) (concluding the father’s concession that “he

needed a few more months to be in a position to have the child returned to his

custody . . . foreclosed reunification”).

Concession aside, the remaining record also supports termination under

that ground. The mother is battling a decade-long methamphetamine addiction.

That addiction led to the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her two older

children in 2022. The mother completed inpatient substance-use treatment in

those proceedings. But after she left residential treatment, the mother started

using methamphetamine again. She continued to use methamphetamine while

she was pregnant with this child, who was born positive for the drug. While the

mother began the case “with strong motivation” to get the child back into her 4

custody, she admitted relapsing just a few months later. For the next several

months, the mother stopped attending treatment and visits with the child. She also

neglected her mental health, avoiding therapy and prescribed medications for her

anxiety and depression. The mother waited until the day before the State

petitioned to terminate her parental rights to enter an inpatient substance-use

treatment facility, where she expected to remain for the next year.

We urge the mother to stay on the path she started just before the

termination hearing, where she testified: “I want to be off of drugs, I want to be

clean, I want to live sober, and I want to have a good life.” But given her history,

we agree with the juvenile court that the mother will “need a long time to show that

she can maintain sobriety and mental health outside of a treatment facility.” See

In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (“[I]n considering the impact

of a drug addiction, we must consider the treatment history of the parent to gauge

the likelihood the parent will be in a position to parent the child in the foreseeable

future.”). As our supreme court concluded in In re W.M., “[a] long history of

substance abuse, repeated relapses, and demonstrated inability to maintain

sobriety outside a supervised setting demonstrates the child[] could not have been

returned to [the mother’s] care at the time of the termination hearing.” 957 N.W.2d

305, 313 (Iowa 2021) (affirming termination under section 232.116(1)(f)).

For these reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision terminating the

mother’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.