IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0750 Filed July 3, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF N.S., Minor Child,
J.S., Father, Appellant,
A.S., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka,
Judge.
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Matthew W. Boleyn of Boleyn Law, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant father.
Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kristy L. Hefel of Public Defender’s Office, Dubuque, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2
BADDING, Judge.
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their
child, born in January 2023. Family-preservation services were put in place after
the child tested positive for an unprescribed prescription drug at birth. But the
mother later admitted to near-daily use of methamphetamine, and the father was
in prison. The child was removed from the parents’ custody in June and
adjudicated in need of assistance the next month. Despite repeated attempts at
substance-use treatment, the mother kept testing positive for methamphetamine.
The father was not paroled to a residential correctional facility until
December 2023, where he remained when the termination hearing was held in
March 2024.
Following that hearing, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024) and the mother’s rights under
section 232.116(1)(l). On appeal, the mother challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting one of those grounds for termination, argues termination is
not in the child’s best interests because of the parent-child bond, and requests a
“brief extension” to work toward reunification. The father only requests an
extension of time. We review these claims de novo under our familiar three-step
analysis in termination proceedings. See In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313
(Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3).
Beginning with the first step, although the mother’s rights were terminated
under both section 232.116(1)(h) and (l), she only challenges the latter ground.
While we could summarily affirm on the unchallenged ground, we elect to briefly 3
address its merits.1 See, e.g., In re S.S., No. 24-0071, 2024 WL 1757564, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2024). In the months before the termination hearing, the
mother continued to use methamphetamine, despite successfully completing a
thirty-day treatment program in October 2023. She admitted relapsing on
methamphetamine in January 2024. The mother then tested positive for
methamphetamine in February and again in March—just a few days before the
termination hearing. Some of these positive tests happened when she was living
in structured shelters for women and participating in substance-use treatment. The
mother’s ongoing use of methamphetamine is clear and convincing evidence that
the child could not be returned to her custody at the termination hearing. See, e.g.,
In re J.S., No. 23-0399, 2023 WL 3335325, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 20, 2023)
(“[W]e are unable to conclude that the father’s methamphetamine use is at an end,
so we conclude the child cannot be returned to the father’s custody safely.”). We
accordingly affirm termination under section 232.116(1)(h).
Combining the second and third steps, the mother argues termination is not
in the child’s best interests because she “shares a bond with” the child and
disrupting that bond “would be detrimental.” Because the mother does not address
how the best-interest factors in section 232.116(2) weigh against termination, we
limit our analysis to the bond exception in section 232.116(3)(c). See In re E.S.,
No. 23-0590, 2023 WL 4104126, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 21, 2023)
1 Though we are addressing the merits in this case, we have found similarly deficient claims waived in others. See, e.g., In re A.S., No. 23-1625, 2023 WL 8449568, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023). If parents want to challenge the statutory grounds for termination, we urge counsel to include all grounds for termination in the petition on appeal to avoid waiver. 4
(“Consideration of the parent-child bond is not a part of our best-interests
analysis.”); see also In re L.L., No. 24-0431, 2024 WL 2045335, at *3 (Iowa Ct.
App. May 8, 2024) (noting best-interest claim based on bond exception “is more
properly addressed under the third step”).
There was certainly a bond between the mother and child—an undisputed
one according to the juvenile court. “Yet the existence of a bond is not enough.”
In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021). To avoid termination under
section 232.116(3)(c), the “law requires clear and convincing evidence that
‘termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship.’” Id. (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). While the
mother testified that termination would “almost be borderline abuse” and “cause a
tremendous amount of trauma” to the child, she didn’t present any evidence to
support that opinion. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018) (“[T]he
parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception.”). Given
the child’s young age and length of removal, we agree with the juvenile court that
this exception does not apply.
Last, both parents argue the juvenile court should have granted “a brief
extension of time for reunification.” A grant of additional time to work toward
reunification is appropriate only if we can conclude “the need for removal . . . will
no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b). Sadly, we cannot reach that conclusion here for either parent.
The mother asserts she “substantially complied with the department’s
expectations” by finding an apartment, getting a job, and engaging in treatment
and parenting education. We applaud the mother for those positive steps. But 5
they came in the weeks just before the termination hearing, when she was still
testing positive for methamphetamine. See In re E.W., No. 24-0186, 2024 WL
1552597, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2024) (declining to defer permanency where
a parent has tested positive for methamphetamine shortly before the termination
hearing). And we agree with the juvenile court that given the mother’s history,
which included years of substance use and housing instability, 2 she will “need a
significant period of time to establish” that she can maintain her progress. See In
re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990) (“Given [the father’s] past performance
we are not convinced additional time or services will change him.”). We
accordingly conclude additional time was unwarranted for the mother.
It’s also unwarranted for the father, who had little involvement in these
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0750 Filed July 3, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF N.S., Minor Child,
J.S., Father, Appellant,
A.S., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka,
Judge.
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Matthew W. Boleyn of Boleyn Law, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant father.
Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kristy L. Hefel of Public Defender’s Office, Dubuque, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2
BADDING, Judge.
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their
child, born in January 2023. Family-preservation services were put in place after
the child tested positive for an unprescribed prescription drug at birth. But the
mother later admitted to near-daily use of methamphetamine, and the father was
in prison. The child was removed from the parents’ custody in June and
adjudicated in need of assistance the next month. Despite repeated attempts at
substance-use treatment, the mother kept testing positive for methamphetamine.
The father was not paroled to a residential correctional facility until
December 2023, where he remained when the termination hearing was held in
March 2024.
Following that hearing, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024) and the mother’s rights under
section 232.116(1)(l). On appeal, the mother challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting one of those grounds for termination, argues termination is
not in the child’s best interests because of the parent-child bond, and requests a
“brief extension” to work toward reunification. The father only requests an
extension of time. We review these claims de novo under our familiar three-step
analysis in termination proceedings. See In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313
(Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3).
Beginning with the first step, although the mother’s rights were terminated
under both section 232.116(1)(h) and (l), she only challenges the latter ground.
While we could summarily affirm on the unchallenged ground, we elect to briefly 3
address its merits.1 See, e.g., In re S.S., No. 24-0071, 2024 WL 1757564, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2024). In the months before the termination hearing, the
mother continued to use methamphetamine, despite successfully completing a
thirty-day treatment program in October 2023. She admitted relapsing on
methamphetamine in January 2024. The mother then tested positive for
methamphetamine in February and again in March—just a few days before the
termination hearing. Some of these positive tests happened when she was living
in structured shelters for women and participating in substance-use treatment. The
mother’s ongoing use of methamphetamine is clear and convincing evidence that
the child could not be returned to her custody at the termination hearing. See, e.g.,
In re J.S., No. 23-0399, 2023 WL 3335325, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 20, 2023)
(“[W]e are unable to conclude that the father’s methamphetamine use is at an end,
so we conclude the child cannot be returned to the father’s custody safely.”). We
accordingly affirm termination under section 232.116(1)(h).
Combining the second and third steps, the mother argues termination is not
in the child’s best interests because she “shares a bond with” the child and
disrupting that bond “would be detrimental.” Because the mother does not address
how the best-interest factors in section 232.116(2) weigh against termination, we
limit our analysis to the bond exception in section 232.116(3)(c). See In re E.S.,
No. 23-0590, 2023 WL 4104126, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 21, 2023)
1 Though we are addressing the merits in this case, we have found similarly deficient claims waived in others. See, e.g., In re A.S., No. 23-1625, 2023 WL 8449568, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023). If parents want to challenge the statutory grounds for termination, we urge counsel to include all grounds for termination in the petition on appeal to avoid waiver. 4
(“Consideration of the parent-child bond is not a part of our best-interests
analysis.”); see also In re L.L., No. 24-0431, 2024 WL 2045335, at *3 (Iowa Ct.
App. May 8, 2024) (noting best-interest claim based on bond exception “is more
properly addressed under the third step”).
There was certainly a bond between the mother and child—an undisputed
one according to the juvenile court. “Yet the existence of a bond is not enough.”
In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021). To avoid termination under
section 232.116(3)(c), the “law requires clear and convincing evidence that
‘termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship.’” Id. (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). While the
mother testified that termination would “almost be borderline abuse” and “cause a
tremendous amount of trauma” to the child, she didn’t present any evidence to
support that opinion. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018) (“[T]he
parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception.”). Given
the child’s young age and length of removal, we agree with the juvenile court that
this exception does not apply.
Last, both parents argue the juvenile court should have granted “a brief
extension of time for reunification.” A grant of additional time to work toward
reunification is appropriate only if we can conclude “the need for removal . . . will
no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b). Sadly, we cannot reach that conclusion here for either parent.
The mother asserts she “substantially complied with the department’s
expectations” by finding an apartment, getting a job, and engaging in treatment
and parenting education. We applaud the mother for those positive steps. But 5
they came in the weeks just before the termination hearing, when she was still
testing positive for methamphetamine. See In re E.W., No. 24-0186, 2024 WL
1552597, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2024) (declining to defer permanency where
a parent has tested positive for methamphetamine shortly before the termination
hearing). And we agree with the juvenile court that given the mother’s history,
which included years of substance use and housing instability, 2 she will “need a
significant period of time to establish” that she can maintain her progress. See In
re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990) (“Given [the father’s] past performance
we are not convinced additional time or services will change him.”). We
accordingly conclude additional time was unwarranted for the mother.
It’s also unwarranted for the father, who had little involvement in these
proceedings until he was released from prison in December 2023. Even then, he
only participated in supervised visits. The father was still in a residential
correctional facility at the termination hearing, and he had made little progress
toward being released. Because there was no guarantee the father would be
released within six months, we cannot conclude an extension of time was
warranted. Cf. In re L.S., No. 21-2000, 2022 WL 2826024, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
July 20, 2022) (“We don’t even know if [the parent] will be out of jail or prison by
then. So we have no basis to conclude an extension of time is warranted.”).
Beyond the uncertainty about when he would be released, the father had no
2 The mother, who was twenty-six years old at the termination hearing, began using
marijuana when she was thirteen years old and methamphetamine when she was eighteen. During the short time when the child was in her care, the child twice tested positive for illegal substances. And the mother moved twelve times in the nine months the child was removed from her care and was homeless for several months. 6
concrete plans for where he would go once released. The father stated in his
petition on appeal that he intends to live with the mother. But his parole officer told
the family’s case manager that would not be an approved living situation because
of the mother’s positive drug tests, and the case manager testified that the father’s
residence with the mother would be a barrier to reunification. We accordingly
agree with the juvenile court that additional time is not appropriate for the father
either.