IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0245 Filed May 26, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF N.C. and C.C., Minor Children,
A.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D.
Sauer, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to two children.
AFFIRMED.
Cameron M. Sprecher of Sprecher Law Office, PLC, Mason City, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Michael J. Moeller of Sorensen & Moeller Law Office, Clear Lake, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021). 2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, ages
eight and twelve. The mother contends the court should have forgone termination
due to the strength of the parent-child bond and should have given her an
additional six months to work toward reunification. We affirm.
Initiating the case and lasting throughout, the mother has faced persistent
substance-abuse problems, mental-health problems, domestic violence and drug
use with inappropriate paramours, unemployment, and housing instability. Despite
multiple attempts, the mother was not able to maintain a significant period of
sobriety. Early on, she completed outpatient treatment at Prairie Ridge and the
summer of 2020 a twenty-eight-day inpatient program. But since then, she has
relapsed and not engaged consistently with any treatment. She has also refused
multiple requests for drug tests by the department of human services (DHS) and
has tested positive several times. She admitted using illegal substances, primarily
methamphetamine, through the case to cope with her mental-health condition and
lack of support. She testified that the last time she used was just days before the
termination hearing. The day before the termination hearing, she obtained a new
substance-abuse evaluation and was scheduled to once again begin treatment.
The mother also engaged sporadically with mental-health services but did
not attend consistently. She had previously been prescribed medications for her
mental-health conditions but indicated she decided on her own to stop taking them.
She also acknowledged that she should probably get back on some of her
medications because her depression frequently “got the better” of her. 3
Before the termination hearing, the mother had obtained an efficiency
apartment through Friends of the Family but was not employed. She had most
recently been employed for about a month but was fired. But before that, she had
gone a year without employment. She required housing and food assistance.
The DHS social worker’s testimony pointed out another concern: the mother
continues to maintain contact with paramours who expose her to domestic violence
and drug use. There was an incident where a former paramour, who subjected
her to domestic violence, came to her home and started banging on a door during
her visitation, after which visits were moved to Families First offices for safety
concerns. Both children acknowledged seeing this violence with the first
paramour. The mother agreed she had ended her previous relationship that
involved domestic violence but admitted to being in a new relationship that she
described as abusive. The mother has told the worker that her current paramour
is very similar to the former in that he is controlling and attempts to isolate her.
She admitted she had once reported that the new paramour kidnapped her and
tampered with her car. But various observations by the DHS social worker and
Family Case Coordinators (FCC) indicated she was still seeing both men at various
times through the case.
One FCC1 testified the mother’s engagement with services and DHS was
inconsistent. The mother did not effectively acknowledge the issues with her
parenting. She was unable to utilize many of the offered services because she did
not follow through with initiation steps or complete paperwork the FCC helped her
1 The first FCC is also the former family safety, risk, and permanency service provider. 4
start. During the case, the FCC saw little progress. At the hearing, the FCC
testified the remaining barriers to reunification were unstable housing, involvement
with inappropriate paramours, mental-health problems, and continued drug use.
Another FCC testified the mother understands what barriers she needs to
overcome to be reunited with her children. But she still has not been consistently
working to resolve them. She testified the mother has not followed through with
mental-health and substance-abuse treatment programs. The FCC also testified
recent visits have gone poorly because the mother gets frustrated with the children
bickering. In response, she has left the room. And the FCC has had to vigorously
encourage both the mother and the children to actively engage with each other
during visitations. At the last visitation before the termination hearing, the mother
made a hurtful statement to the children, and the FCC ended the visit early. The
older child, N.C., expressed displeasure in visiting her mother and voluntarily
stopped going despite encouragement from the FCC.
The DHS worker agreed that the younger child, C.C., is closer to the mother
than N.C. When asked whether the mother could resolve her problems within six
months, the worker said no because it would take longer based on the mother’s
history of inconsistency in treatment services, her continued substance abuse, and
the need to demonstrate sobriety for a period of time.
The children have been in the custody of their father.2 The juvenile court
found he meets all their basic needs. But the juvenile court terminated the mother’s
rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (e) and (f) (2020). The
2 Mother and father have been divorced for approximately five years. 5
mother appeals. “We review child-welfare proceedings de novo.” In re A.H., 950
N.W.2d 27, 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). “The juvenile court’s fact findings do not bind
us, but we give them weight, particularly with regard to credibility.” Id. Our primary
concern is the best interests of the child[].” Id.
The mother first contends the district court erred by failing to apply the
exception found under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) to determine the
termination was not necessary. That section permits the juvenile court to deny a
petition to terminate if the parent presents “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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). Application of this factor
is permissive, not mandatory. See In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App.
2019).
But we find nothing approaching clear and convincing evidence that
termination of her rights would be detrimental to her children.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0245 Filed May 26, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF N.C. and C.C., Minor Children,
A.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D.
Sauer, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to two children.
AFFIRMED.
Cameron M. Sprecher of Sprecher Law Office, PLC, Mason City, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Michael J. Moeller of Sorensen & Moeller Law Office, Clear Lake, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021). 2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, ages
eight and twelve. The mother contends the court should have forgone termination
due to the strength of the parent-child bond and should have given her an
additional six months to work toward reunification. We affirm.
Initiating the case and lasting throughout, the mother has faced persistent
substance-abuse problems, mental-health problems, domestic violence and drug
use with inappropriate paramours, unemployment, and housing instability. Despite
multiple attempts, the mother was not able to maintain a significant period of
sobriety. Early on, she completed outpatient treatment at Prairie Ridge and the
summer of 2020 a twenty-eight-day inpatient program. But since then, she has
relapsed and not engaged consistently with any treatment. She has also refused
multiple requests for drug tests by the department of human services (DHS) and
has tested positive several times. She admitted using illegal substances, primarily
methamphetamine, through the case to cope with her mental-health condition and
lack of support. She testified that the last time she used was just days before the
termination hearing. The day before the termination hearing, she obtained a new
substance-abuse evaluation and was scheduled to once again begin treatment.
The mother also engaged sporadically with mental-health services but did
not attend consistently. She had previously been prescribed medications for her
mental-health conditions but indicated she decided on her own to stop taking them.
She also acknowledged that she should probably get back on some of her
medications because her depression frequently “got the better” of her. 3
Before the termination hearing, the mother had obtained an efficiency
apartment through Friends of the Family but was not employed. She had most
recently been employed for about a month but was fired. But before that, she had
gone a year without employment. She required housing and food assistance.
The DHS social worker’s testimony pointed out another concern: the mother
continues to maintain contact with paramours who expose her to domestic violence
and drug use. There was an incident where a former paramour, who subjected
her to domestic violence, came to her home and started banging on a door during
her visitation, after which visits were moved to Families First offices for safety
concerns. Both children acknowledged seeing this violence with the first
paramour. The mother agreed she had ended her previous relationship that
involved domestic violence but admitted to being in a new relationship that she
described as abusive. The mother has told the worker that her current paramour
is very similar to the former in that he is controlling and attempts to isolate her.
She admitted she had once reported that the new paramour kidnapped her and
tampered with her car. But various observations by the DHS social worker and
Family Case Coordinators (FCC) indicated she was still seeing both men at various
times through the case.
One FCC1 testified the mother’s engagement with services and DHS was
inconsistent. The mother did not effectively acknowledge the issues with her
parenting. She was unable to utilize many of the offered services because she did
not follow through with initiation steps or complete paperwork the FCC helped her
1 The first FCC is also the former family safety, risk, and permanency service provider. 4
start. During the case, the FCC saw little progress. At the hearing, the FCC
testified the remaining barriers to reunification were unstable housing, involvement
with inappropriate paramours, mental-health problems, and continued drug use.
Another FCC testified the mother understands what barriers she needs to
overcome to be reunited with her children. But she still has not been consistently
working to resolve them. She testified the mother has not followed through with
mental-health and substance-abuse treatment programs. The FCC also testified
recent visits have gone poorly because the mother gets frustrated with the children
bickering. In response, she has left the room. And the FCC has had to vigorously
encourage both the mother and the children to actively engage with each other
during visitations. At the last visitation before the termination hearing, the mother
made a hurtful statement to the children, and the FCC ended the visit early. The
older child, N.C., expressed displeasure in visiting her mother and voluntarily
stopped going despite encouragement from the FCC.
The DHS worker agreed that the younger child, C.C., is closer to the mother
than N.C. When asked whether the mother could resolve her problems within six
months, the worker said no because it would take longer based on the mother’s
history of inconsistency in treatment services, her continued substance abuse, and
the need to demonstrate sobriety for a period of time.
The children have been in the custody of their father.2 The juvenile court
found he meets all their basic needs. But the juvenile court terminated the mother’s
rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (e) and (f) (2020). The
2 Mother and father have been divorced for approximately five years. 5
mother appeals. “We review child-welfare proceedings de novo.” In re A.H., 950
N.W.2d 27, 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). “The juvenile court’s fact findings do not bind
us, but we give them weight, particularly with regard to credibility.” Id. Our primary
concern is the best interests of the child[].” Id.
The mother first contends the district court erred by failing to apply the
exception found under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) to determine the
termination was not necessary. That section permits the juvenile court to deny a
petition to terminate if the parent presents “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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). Application of this factor
is permissive, not mandatory. See In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App.
2019).
But we find nothing approaching clear and convincing evidence that
termination of her rights would be detrimental to her children. Most of the evidence
presented at trial was that the parent-child relationship was deteriorating. The FCC
testified the mother’s relationship with her children was distant. She described the
children as being “uncomfortable” in their mother’s presence. N.C. “requested that
a worker be present when she saw her mom.” And the mother herself admitted
N.C. does not want to see her or talk to her. When asked what her relationship
with the children is like right now, she responded, “I’d say distant. It’s hard to get
them to talk to me . . . .” She also acknowledged being “checked out” or “less
engaged” with the children during visitations. N.C. appeared upset after being told
a permanency hearing was continued because it meant she would have to keep
going to visitations and chose to voluntarily end visitations with her mother. The 6
FCC worker testified that over time, “there’s [been] a decline with the bond and
relationship between [the mother] and her kids.” The mother has not shown the
children will suffer any ill effect from termination, and it appears N.C. might benefit
from discontinuing contact with her mother on a permanent basis. Therefore, we
find the mother did not show we should apply this subsection to halt termination.
The mother next contends the juvenile court should have given her an
additional six months to work toward reunifying with the children.3 To grant an
extension of six months, under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b), the court must
determine the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of that time. In re
A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 89 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). We reach the same conclusion
as the juvenile court that additional time is not warranted in this case. The mother
has had well over a year to demonstrate her commitment to resolving her major
problem—substance addiction. She argues she was engaged in substance-abuse
treatment but since her relapse all she has really accomplished was attend a
substance-abuse evaluation. At the hearing, she had not yet attended a treatment
appointment. And prior successful program completions did not result in the
mother demonstrating any extended period of sobriety. She admitted to using
drugs throughout the case, including just days before the termination hearing. The
mother also admitted to the FCC that she has “a very long recovery ahead of
herself before she would be able to properly care for” her children. Nor had the
mother been able to demonstrate a commitment to resolving her mental-health
issues—she needed to resume medication but had not done so. She attended
3We note the court-appointed special advocate and the guardian ad litem agree with termination of the mother’s rights. 7
mental-health treatment only sporadically. She also continued to engage in
relationships with paramours that she herself admitted were abusing her. The best
insight to a parent’s future performance is past performance. In re Dameron, 306
N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981). The mother has not shown there is reason to
believe the need for removal will no longer exist in six months. The juvenile court
correctly declined to give her the additional time.
We affirm termination of her parental rights.