IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0704 Filed July 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF R.D., Minor Child,
M.D., Father, Appellant,
D.L., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to a child. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Adam E. Brewster of Neighborhood Law Group of Iowa, West Des Moines,
for appellant father.
Felicia M. Bertín Rocha of Bertín Rocha Law, P.C., Urbandale, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Megil Dashawn Patterson of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the order terminating their parental
rights. The mother challenges each step of the termination analysis, In re A.S.,
906 N.W.2d 467, 472–73 (Iowa 2018) (describing the three-step analysis), and
asks for more time. The father contends that termination is not in the child’s best
interests and seeks to avoid termination by having the child placed in the custody
of a relative. Following a de novo review, see In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 168
(Iowa 2021), we affirm the order terminating each of their parental rights.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The child came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) in July 2023 after the mother tested positive for heroin,
amphetamines, and methadone when she was admitted to the hospital to give
birth. The child’s umbilical cord tested positive for methadone, and the child
showed signs of withdrawal. As a result, the juvenile court removed the child from
the parents’ custody when the child was two weeks old. HHS placed the child in
foster care, and the child remains in the same placement.
The State petitioned to adjudicate the child as a child in need of assistance
(CINA). The parents stipulated that the child was CINA, and the juvenile court
entered the adjudicatory order in September. The father’s paternity was confirmed
by paternity testing completed the same month.
The mother has a history of substance use that extends over twenty years.
Her substance-use issues resulted in the termination of her parental rights to two
other children: one in 2009 and the other in 2014. The mother admits she has
struggled with methamphetamine and heroin for several years. She entered 3
inpatient treatment in September, but she was discharged eight days later for
violating the program’s policies. The mother showed signs of being under the
influence during a supervised visit with the child, and she was arrested on drug
charges in November. She never provided samples for drug testing when asked
and never completed treatment.
The father also has a long history of substance use. He admits he uses
alcohol and marijuana regularly and uses cocaine “socially.” The father was
enrolled in inpatient treatment for about five weeks, but he was discharged in
November for using methamphetamine and attempting to fake the results of a drug
screening. In January 2024, he was arrested on drug charges after he was located
inside a vehicle driven by the mother.
The State petitioned to terminate the mother’s and father’s parental rights.
The termination hearing was held in March.1 At the time of the termination hearing,
the father was incarcerated after pleading guilty to possession of fentanyl with
intent to deliver and possession of contraband in a correctional facility, for which
he received consecutive sentences totaling fifteen years in prison. The mother
was also incarcerated at the time of the hearing after pleading guilty to possession
of methamphetamine, second offense, and receiving a suspended sentence. The
mother’s attorney moved to continue the hearing until the mother’s release from
jail, but the juvenile court denied the motion based on the late request and the
importance of addressing permanency for the child.
1 When neither parent appeared at a February permanency hearing, it was reset
to coincide with the termination hearing the next month. 4
At the termination hearing, the HHS worker testified that the child was doing
well in his foster-home placement. HHS was also investigating the possibility of
placing the child with the paternal grandmother, who lives outside of Iowa. The
mother asked for a three-month extension of permanency to attend inpatient
treatment. In the alternative, she asked the court to place the child with the
paternal grandmother. The father admitted he could not take custody of the child
due to his incarceration, but he argued the mother could be successful if she was
given more time.
The juvenile court found the State proved the grounds for terminating the
mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (h) (2024) and
the father’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h). It also found that
termination is in the child’s best interests and none of the circumstances set out in
section 232.116(3) apply. It terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights
and placed the child in the custody of HHS for pre-adoptive care.
II. Mother’s Appeal.
We start our analysis with the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
The mother challenges the evidence showing the grounds for termination and asks
for more time. She also contends termination is not in the child’s best interests
and seeks to avoid termination based on one of the grounds set out in Iowa Code
section 232.116(3).
We begin with the grounds for termination. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 472–
73. Because the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights on two
statutory grounds, “we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find
supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We focus 5
our analysis on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). The mother does not dispute
that the State proved the first three requirements for termination under this section.
See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(1)-(3) (applying if a child is three or younger, has
been adjudicated CINA, and has been removed from the parent’s custody for six
months). She challenges the fourth element, which requires clear and convincing
evidence showing the child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody at the time
of the termination hearing. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4); A.B., 956 N.W.2d
at 168.
The child cannot be returned to the mother’s custody because at the time
of the termination hearing, the mother was in jail. The mother argues that she was
about to be released from jail, so “the child could have been returned to her care
within a few days after the termination hearing.” But even if the mother were not
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0704 Filed July 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF R.D., Minor Child,
M.D., Father, Appellant,
D.L., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to a child. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Adam E. Brewster of Neighborhood Law Group of Iowa, West Des Moines,
for appellant father.
Felicia M. Bertín Rocha of Bertín Rocha Law, P.C., Urbandale, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Megil Dashawn Patterson of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the order terminating their parental
rights. The mother challenges each step of the termination analysis, In re A.S.,
906 N.W.2d 467, 472–73 (Iowa 2018) (describing the three-step analysis), and
asks for more time. The father contends that termination is not in the child’s best
interests and seeks to avoid termination by having the child placed in the custody
of a relative. Following a de novo review, see In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 168
(Iowa 2021), we affirm the order terminating each of their parental rights.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The child came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) in July 2023 after the mother tested positive for heroin,
amphetamines, and methadone when she was admitted to the hospital to give
birth. The child’s umbilical cord tested positive for methadone, and the child
showed signs of withdrawal. As a result, the juvenile court removed the child from
the parents’ custody when the child was two weeks old. HHS placed the child in
foster care, and the child remains in the same placement.
The State petitioned to adjudicate the child as a child in need of assistance
(CINA). The parents stipulated that the child was CINA, and the juvenile court
entered the adjudicatory order in September. The father’s paternity was confirmed
by paternity testing completed the same month.
The mother has a history of substance use that extends over twenty years.
Her substance-use issues resulted in the termination of her parental rights to two
other children: one in 2009 and the other in 2014. The mother admits she has
struggled with methamphetamine and heroin for several years. She entered 3
inpatient treatment in September, but she was discharged eight days later for
violating the program’s policies. The mother showed signs of being under the
influence during a supervised visit with the child, and she was arrested on drug
charges in November. She never provided samples for drug testing when asked
and never completed treatment.
The father also has a long history of substance use. He admits he uses
alcohol and marijuana regularly and uses cocaine “socially.” The father was
enrolled in inpatient treatment for about five weeks, but he was discharged in
November for using methamphetamine and attempting to fake the results of a drug
screening. In January 2024, he was arrested on drug charges after he was located
inside a vehicle driven by the mother.
The State petitioned to terminate the mother’s and father’s parental rights.
The termination hearing was held in March.1 At the time of the termination hearing,
the father was incarcerated after pleading guilty to possession of fentanyl with
intent to deliver and possession of contraband in a correctional facility, for which
he received consecutive sentences totaling fifteen years in prison. The mother
was also incarcerated at the time of the hearing after pleading guilty to possession
of methamphetamine, second offense, and receiving a suspended sentence. The
mother’s attorney moved to continue the hearing until the mother’s release from
jail, but the juvenile court denied the motion based on the late request and the
importance of addressing permanency for the child.
1 When neither parent appeared at a February permanency hearing, it was reset
to coincide with the termination hearing the next month. 4
At the termination hearing, the HHS worker testified that the child was doing
well in his foster-home placement. HHS was also investigating the possibility of
placing the child with the paternal grandmother, who lives outside of Iowa. The
mother asked for a three-month extension of permanency to attend inpatient
treatment. In the alternative, she asked the court to place the child with the
paternal grandmother. The father admitted he could not take custody of the child
due to his incarceration, but he argued the mother could be successful if she was
given more time.
The juvenile court found the State proved the grounds for terminating the
mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (h) (2024) and
the father’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h). It also found that
termination is in the child’s best interests and none of the circumstances set out in
section 232.116(3) apply. It terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights
and placed the child in the custody of HHS for pre-adoptive care.
II. Mother’s Appeal.
We start our analysis with the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
The mother challenges the evidence showing the grounds for termination and asks
for more time. She also contends termination is not in the child’s best interests
and seeks to avoid termination based on one of the grounds set out in Iowa Code
section 232.116(3).
We begin with the grounds for termination. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 472–
73. Because the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights on two
statutory grounds, “we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find
supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We focus 5
our analysis on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). The mother does not dispute
that the State proved the first three requirements for termination under this section.
See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(1)-(3) (applying if a child is three or younger, has
been adjudicated CINA, and has been removed from the parent’s custody for six
months). She challenges the fourth element, which requires clear and convincing
evidence showing the child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody at the time
of the termination hearing. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4); A.B., 956 N.W.2d
at 168.
The child cannot be returned to the mother’s custody because at the time
of the termination hearing, the mother was in jail. The mother argues that she was
about to be released from jail, so “the child could have been returned to her care
within a few days after the termination hearing.” But even if the mother were not
in jail, the child could not be returned to her custody because the substance-use
issues that led to the CINA adjudication remain unresolved. See In re W.M., 957
N.W.2d 305, 313 (Iowa 2021) (“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.”). Clear and convincing evidence
supports terminating the mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).
As an alternative to termination, the mother asks us to delay permanency
for six months. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b) (allowing the court to continue a
child’s placement for up to six months if the need for the child’s removal from the
home will no longer exist at the end of that period). But to delay permanency, we
must “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes 6
which comprise the basis for the determination that the need for removal of the
child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-
month period.” Considering the mother’s substance-use history, failed past
attempts at sobriety, and lack of engagement in services during these proceedings,
we cannot find the need for removal would be eliminated if the mother was given
more time.
We next consider “whether the best-interest framework as laid out in
section 232.116(2) supports the termination of parental rights.” See A.S., 906
N.W.2d at 473 (citation omitted). When determining best interests, we “give
primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the
long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and
emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2); accord In
re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 528 (Iowa 2019) (stating that “we look to the child’s long-
range as well as immediate interests, consider what the future holds for the child
if returned to the parents, and weigh the child’s safety and need for a permanent
home” (cleaned up)).
Clear and convincing evidence shows that termination is in the child’s best
interests. The child was removed from the mother two weeks after birth and was
never returned to her custody. The mother’s substance-use issues impede the
mother from providing the child with the care he requires. Her past performance
casts doubt on her ability to provide that care. See In re B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d 227,
233 (Iowa 2020) (noting that the mother’s past performance indicates the quality
of care she can provide in the future). While the mother squandered the precious
time afforded during the CINA proceedings, his pre-adoptive foster placement 7
provided the long-term safety and stability that the child needs. The child is bonded
with his foster parent and is thriving in her care. Although terminating parental
rights may hurt the mother, the child’s needs supersede hers. See In re C.S., 776
N.W.2d 297, 300 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (“[A]t some point, the rights and needs of
the child[] rise above the rights and needs of the parent.”).
Finally, “we consider whether any exceptions in section 232.116(3) apply to
preclude termination of parental rights.” See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 473. The mother
argues against terminating her parental rights under section 232.116(3)(c) (stating
that the court “need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child if
. . . [t]here is 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”). In support of her argument, she notes that she nursed the child
“from the time of his birth through his removal.” But that two-week period pales in
comparison to the eight months that passed from the child’s removal to the
termination hearing. Further, as the juvenile court noted, any bond established
between the mother and child has been harmed by the mother’s absence due to
her substance use and incarceration. The mere existence of a parent-child bond
is insufficient. To avoid termination under section 232.116(3)(c), the mother bears
the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence “that, on balance, [the
parent-child] bond makes termination more detrimental [for the child] than not.”
W.M., 957 N.W.2d at 315. The mother has not shown that the strength of their
bond outweighs the child’s need for permanency such that termination of her
parental rights will harm the child. 8
Having found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), termination is in the child’s best interests, and
the circumstances listed in section 232.116(3) do not apply to the mother, we affirm
the termination of her parental rights. We turn then to the father’s appeal.2
III. Father’s Appeal.
The father contends the juvenile court erred by terminating his parental
rights because “reasonable efforts were not followed to pursue familial placement
as required under Iowa Code [section] 232.117(3).”3 The father requested that
HHS consider the paternal grandmother as a potential placement for the child. In
a report filed one week before the termination hearing, HHS stated that it had
started obtaining a home study of the paternal grandmother’s home but no findings
were available yet.
When the court transfers custody of the child to HHS for placement after a
dispositional hearing, Iowa Code section 232.102(6) requires HHS to “make every
reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as possible
consistent with the best interests of the child.” But this requirement “is not viewed
as a strict substantive requirement of termination.” L.T., 924 N.W.2d at 527
2 In her appellate brief, the mother states that if we affirm the termination of her
parental rights, she joins the father’s arguments about the child’s placement. We address those claims below. 3 The father appears to conflate the statute addressing transfer of legal custody
and placement of a child following a dispositional hearing with the statute addressing a child’s custody and placement following termination. Compare Iowa Code § 232.102 (addressing the transfer of legal custody and placement of a child after a dispositional hearing), with id. § 232.117(3) (addressing the transfer of guardianship and custody of a child following termination of parental rights). Although section 232.102 requires reasonable effort to return the child to the parent’s custody, section 232.117(3) does not. 9
(citation omitted). Rather, the scope of the services provided by HHS impacts the
State’s burden of showing the child cannot be safely returned to the parent’s
custody. Id.; accord Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4) (requiring the court to find that
the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in
section 232.102). The father concedes the State has proved by clear and
convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to his custody at the time of
the termination hearing. Because the father’s incarceration prevents him from
taking custody of the child, the State has proved the grounds for termination under
section 232.116(1)(h).
Although placement of the child in the legal custody of a relative could affect
the decision to terminate parental rights, see Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a) (providing
that the court need not terminate parental rights if “[a] relative has legal custody of
the child”), section 232.116(3)(a) does not apply because the child is not in the
paternal grandmother’s legal custody, see In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa
2014) (declining to apply section 232.116(3)(a) to avoid termination because the
child was not in the grandparents’ legal custody). To the extent that the court could
apply the section to save the parent-child relationship if the paternal grandmother
was the child’s legal custodian, we note that it need not do so. Id. The court may
preserve parental rights based on section 232.116(3)(a) only if it serves the child’s
best interests. Id.
The father claims that any harm in terminating parental rights will be
lessened by placing the child with the paternal grandmother. But the record shows
that the child has never met the paternal grandmother, who lives in North Carolina.
It is hard to conceive how removing the child from the only home he has known 10
and placing him with a stranger in another state would lessen the detriment of
terminating parental rights.
We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.