IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-0482 Filed June 18, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF R.M., Minor Child,
A.F., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Annette F. Martin, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Julie Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and
Sandy, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to R.M., born in
2020. Finding the statutory elements were proven and termination is in the child’s
best interests, and declining to apply a permissive exception, we affirm.
The family became involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) in June 2023 when the father’s paternity was established in a
separate child-welfare case. The HHS worker observed signs of marijuana use in
the home and grew concerned for R.M.’s welfare. In March 2024, the parents
tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), methamphetamine, and cocaine.
The child was removed from parental custody and placed in the custody of HHS.
And the child tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and THC. HHS
placed the child in the physical care of relatives, then moved to the adoptive family
of a younger half-sibling.
The child has been diagnosed with autism and referred for early-childhood
interventions. She is mostly non-verbal (though still developing and responding to
therapy) and struggles with regulating her emotions at times. In the past, the
mother struggled with getting the child to appointments, which resulted in a speech
therapy provider refusing to see the child in the future.
According to the mother, at the beginning of the case she thought she was
taking unprescribed Percocet (an opioid) given to her by the father, and she only
found out it was methamphetamine after the drug test. After the first positive drug
test, the mother engaged in substance-abuse treatment; she was not successful
with her first program but was nearing completion of a separate program during
the termination trial. She missed many of her required drug tests, and when she 3
did appear she usually tested positive for marijuana, which was consistent with her
admitted use. She provided one negative test for THC in early November but
tested positive for cocaine. She tested positive for THC again but then had several
more negative tests.
The mother participated in a mental-health evaluation and started therapy
and medication. But she did not take the medications as prescribed, instead taking
them sporadically. Rather than be consistent with her prescriptions, she used
marijuana to self-medicate. She obtained a marijuana card but continued to get
marijuana unlawfully from family and friends instead of lawfully from a dispensary.
The mother’s attendance at visitation was spotty for many months (failing
to confirm visits and having transportation issues), but she attended most visits in
the couple months after the termination petition was filed. The missed visits
resulted in the child being “unconsolable.” The mother made comments at times
to relatives and the foster family about kidnapping the child.
HHS, the county attorney, and the child’s guardian ad litem all
recommended termination of parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the
mother’s rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024). The court cited
the mother’s inconsistency with visits, her mental-health treatment, and her
substance-abuse treatment. More, the court found the mother was “not in a
position to provide [the child] with the stability and safety she needs.” The mother
appeals, and we review de novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312
(Iowa 2021).
Statutory Elements. The mother’s petition on appeal challenges
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g). But only the father’s rights 4
were terminated under that paragraph—which requires the termination of parental
rights to another child. The mother’s rights were terminated under paragraph (h).
To the extent she makes an argument about paragraph (h), the mother
urges the child can be returned to her custody after more time to “make the
necessary adjustments to ensure R.M.’s safety in her care going forward.” But the
only specific change she articulated was planning to stop using marijuana—and
she testified to having used it just the day before trial. See Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b) (requiring an enumeration of “specific factors, conditions, or
expected behavioral changes” to support an extension). The child could not have
been returned to her custody at the time of trial, and the mother’s actions did not
provide a basis on which the court could grant an extension. See id.
§ 232.116(1)(h)(4); In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014). We conclude
the statutory ground for termination was established.
Best Interests. The mother also argues termination is not in the child’s
best interests. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). Our best-interests analysis focuses
on “the child’s safety,” “the long-term nurturing and growth of the child,” and the
child’s “physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs.” Id.
The mother clearly loves the child and was attempting to make good
decisions for her. But the child needs stable, reliable care, and the mother has
struggled to keep up with her own mental health, much less the child’s medical
and therapeutic needs. When medicine was prescribed for her mental health, the
mother chose not to take it as prescribed and continued using non-prescription
marijuana as recently as the day before trial. She failed to fully participate in
services for several months and did not take the necessary steps to reunite with 5
the child. And although she had made progress leading up to the termination
trial—such as splitting up with the father and removing many of the bad influences
from her home—her lack of consistency in following through with mental-health
and substance-abuse recommendations is concerning, particularly in light of the
child’s need for stability and for her parent to protect her from potential harm. The
mother’s references to kidnapping the child also do not signal she can be trusted
with acting in the child’s best interests. Considering all the circumstances of this
case, termination is in the child’s best interests.
Bond. Finally, to the extent the issue is raised independent of the
best-interests analysis, the mother perhaps claims the court should have declined
termination due to the parent–child bond. See id. § 232.116(3)(c). The mother
bore the burden to prove by “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.” Id.; see In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018) (requiring
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 25-0482 Filed June 18, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF R.M., Minor Child,
A.F., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Annette F. Martin, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Julie Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and
Sandy, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to R.M., born in
2020. Finding the statutory elements were proven and termination is in the child’s
best interests, and declining to apply a permissive exception, we affirm.
The family became involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) in June 2023 when the father’s paternity was established in a
separate child-welfare case. The HHS worker observed signs of marijuana use in
the home and grew concerned for R.M.’s welfare. In March 2024, the parents
tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), methamphetamine, and cocaine.
The child was removed from parental custody and placed in the custody of HHS.
And the child tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and THC. HHS
placed the child in the physical care of relatives, then moved to the adoptive family
of a younger half-sibling.
The child has been diagnosed with autism and referred for early-childhood
interventions. She is mostly non-verbal (though still developing and responding to
therapy) and struggles with regulating her emotions at times. In the past, the
mother struggled with getting the child to appointments, which resulted in a speech
therapy provider refusing to see the child in the future.
According to the mother, at the beginning of the case she thought she was
taking unprescribed Percocet (an opioid) given to her by the father, and she only
found out it was methamphetamine after the drug test. After the first positive drug
test, the mother engaged in substance-abuse treatment; she was not successful
with her first program but was nearing completion of a separate program during
the termination trial. She missed many of her required drug tests, and when she 3
did appear she usually tested positive for marijuana, which was consistent with her
admitted use. She provided one negative test for THC in early November but
tested positive for cocaine. She tested positive for THC again but then had several
more negative tests.
The mother participated in a mental-health evaluation and started therapy
and medication. But she did not take the medications as prescribed, instead taking
them sporadically. Rather than be consistent with her prescriptions, she used
marijuana to self-medicate. She obtained a marijuana card but continued to get
marijuana unlawfully from family and friends instead of lawfully from a dispensary.
The mother’s attendance at visitation was spotty for many months (failing
to confirm visits and having transportation issues), but she attended most visits in
the couple months after the termination petition was filed. The missed visits
resulted in the child being “unconsolable.” The mother made comments at times
to relatives and the foster family about kidnapping the child.
HHS, the county attorney, and the child’s guardian ad litem all
recommended termination of parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the
mother’s rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024). The court cited
the mother’s inconsistency with visits, her mental-health treatment, and her
substance-abuse treatment. More, the court found the mother was “not in a
position to provide [the child] with the stability and safety she needs.” The mother
appeals, and we review de novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312
(Iowa 2021).
Statutory Elements. The mother’s petition on appeal challenges
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g). But only the father’s rights 4
were terminated under that paragraph—which requires the termination of parental
rights to another child. The mother’s rights were terminated under paragraph (h).
To the extent she makes an argument about paragraph (h), the mother
urges the child can be returned to her custody after more time to “make the
necessary adjustments to ensure R.M.’s safety in her care going forward.” But the
only specific change she articulated was planning to stop using marijuana—and
she testified to having used it just the day before trial. See Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b) (requiring an enumeration of “specific factors, conditions, or
expected behavioral changes” to support an extension). The child could not have
been returned to her custody at the time of trial, and the mother’s actions did not
provide a basis on which the court could grant an extension. See id.
§ 232.116(1)(h)(4); In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014). We conclude
the statutory ground for termination was established.
Best Interests. The mother also argues termination is not in the child’s
best interests. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). Our best-interests analysis focuses
on “the child’s safety,” “the long-term nurturing and growth of the child,” and the
child’s “physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs.” Id.
The mother clearly loves the child and was attempting to make good
decisions for her. But the child needs stable, reliable care, and the mother has
struggled to keep up with her own mental health, much less the child’s medical
and therapeutic needs. When medicine was prescribed for her mental health, the
mother chose not to take it as prescribed and continued using non-prescription
marijuana as recently as the day before trial. She failed to fully participate in
services for several months and did not take the necessary steps to reunite with 5
the child. And although she had made progress leading up to the termination
trial—such as splitting up with the father and removing many of the bad influences
from her home—her lack of consistency in following through with mental-health
and substance-abuse recommendations is concerning, particularly in light of the
child’s need for stability and for her parent to protect her from potential harm. The
mother’s references to kidnapping the child also do not signal she can be trusted
with acting in the child’s best interests. Considering all the circumstances of this
case, termination is in the child’s best interests.
Bond. Finally, to the extent the issue is raised independent of the
best-interests analysis, the mother perhaps claims the court should have declined
termination due to the parent–child bond. See id. § 232.116(3)(c). The mother
bore the burden to prove by “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.” Id.; see In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018) (requiring
parent resisting termination to establish exception).
We recognize the love and bond between mother and child, but that is not
enough. See In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021). If anything, the bond
caused more harm to the child when the mother failed to be consistent in attending
visits, leaving the child “unconsolable.” And the child is bonded with the sibling
she currently lives with and the foster family. The mother did not meet her burden
to show the bond is so close the child would suffer as a result of the termination.
For the reasons described above, we affirm the termination of the mother’s
parental rights.
AFFIRMED.