IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1140 Filed September 21, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF S.G. and R.W., Minor Children
C.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.
AFFIRMED.
Andrew J. Tullar of Herting Law, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Meegan M. Keller of Keller Law Office, Altoona, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
C.W. appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, S.G. and
R.W. She contends that the circumstances leading to adjudication no longer exist,
termination is not in the best interests of either child, and an exception should apply
to one child who is in the care of a relative. Upon our de novo review, we affirm
termination of her parental rights to both children.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
C.W. first became involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) in 2013. Since then, her parental rights to three children have
been terminated. Two additional children, besides those involved in this appeal,
currently reside with family members. The children presently at issue are R.W. 1,
who is five years old, and S.G.2, who is less than one year old.
R.W.’s case began in August 2020 when the DHHS received reports that
her mother used methamphetamine and got into a physical altercation with her
former paramour in R.W.’s presence. The mother had recently returned a
probation-related drug test that was positive for methamphetamine. She did not
have consistent housing and stayed in hotels or with various individuals, including
her mother. She agreed to place R.W. with her mother and not have unsupervised
contact. Shortly thereafter, C.W. entered in-patient substance-abuse treatment
but chose to leave after four days. After her failure to follow through with out-
patient treatment and comply with the safety plan, R.W. was adjudicated a child in
need of assistance in October 2020.
1 R.W.’s father is reportedly deceased. 2 The parental rights of S.G.’s father were also terminated, and he does not appeal. 3
Thereafter, the mother’s pattern of drug use continued. She was
unsuccessfully discharged from in-patient treatment in August 2021. In
September, S.G. was born. Her cord test returned positive for methamphetamine,
amphetamines, and THC. The DHHS did not approve C.W. to live with her mother
and the children due to lack of cooperation throughout the case. The children left
their grandmother’s home in November. S.G. was placed with a friend of the
family, while R.W. was placed with her maternal aunt. The mother was residing
variously in her car or in the hotel where her boyfriend was residing. She was
arrested in November and has been incarcerated since then. She pled guilty to
third-degree burglary, and she was already on probation for burglary and forgery.
The court sentenced her to indeterminate confinement not to exceed fifteen years
with no mandatory minimum. At the time of the termination hearing in June 2022,
the mother had served seven months in prison and hoped to be released on parole
within a matter of months. The court terminated C.W.’s parental rights to both
children. C.W. filed a timely appeal.
II. Review.
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. See In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “We will uphold an order terminating parental rights
where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for
termination. Evidence is clear and convincing when there is no serious or
substantial doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 431 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (internal citation
omitted). We give weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings, especially those 4
about witness credibility, although they are not binding. See Iowa R. App.
P. 6.904(3)(g); C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492.
III. Discussion.
Iowa courts use a three-step analysis to review the termination of parental
rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). Those steps include whether:
(1) grounds for termination have been established, (2) termination is in the
children’s best interests, and (3) we should exercise any of the permissive
exceptions to termination. Id. at 472–73. Here, the juvenile court found the State
proved by clear and convincing evidence three grounds for terminating the
mother’s parental rights for each child. We may affirm if the record supports
termination on any one ground. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012).
We note the mother does not contest the grounds supporting termination pursuant
to paragraphs (f) (as to R.W.) and (h) (as to S.G.) of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)
(2022). Rather, she contends termination is not in the best interests of the children.
By not challenging termination under paragraph (f) as to R.W. and (h) as to S.G.,
the mother has waived any claim of error on that ground. See In re N.N.,
No. 21-1978, 2022 WL 610318, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2022) (holding failure
to challenge one of the grounds for termination results in waiver of any claim of
error on that ground). Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's conclusion that
those statutory grounds for termination have been established.
In determining best interests, we look to the framework described in
section 232.116(2). See In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687, 690–91 (Iowa 2010). That
provision requires that we “give primary consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to
the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the 5
child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the
child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The “defining elements” of the best-interests
analysis are the children’s safety and “need for a permanent home.” In re H.S., 805
N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted).
We may glean insight to a child’s future “from evidence of the parent’s past
performance for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care
that parent is capable of providing.” A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 778 (citation omitted).
Here, the mother’s track record is not favorable. Her parental rights have been
terminated with respect to three other children. She has struggled to maintain
housing and battled with substance abuse for many years now. We cannot say
that the mother has demonstrated promise toward offering a safe and permanent
home for the 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. 22-1140 Filed September 21, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF S.G. and R.W., Minor Children
C.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.
AFFIRMED.
Andrew J. Tullar of Herting Law, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Meegan M. Keller of Keller Law Office, Altoona, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
C.W. appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, S.G. and
R.W. She contends that the circumstances leading to adjudication no longer exist,
termination is not in the best interests of either child, and an exception should apply
to one child who is in the care of a relative. Upon our de novo review, we affirm
termination of her parental rights to both children.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
C.W. first became involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) in 2013. Since then, her parental rights to three children have
been terminated. Two additional children, besides those involved in this appeal,
currently reside with family members. The children presently at issue are R.W. 1,
who is five years old, and S.G.2, who is less than one year old.
R.W.’s case began in August 2020 when the DHHS received reports that
her mother used methamphetamine and got into a physical altercation with her
former paramour in R.W.’s presence. The mother had recently returned a
probation-related drug test that was positive for methamphetamine. She did not
have consistent housing and stayed in hotels or with various individuals, including
her mother. She agreed to place R.W. with her mother and not have unsupervised
contact. Shortly thereafter, C.W. entered in-patient substance-abuse treatment
but chose to leave after four days. After her failure to follow through with out-
patient treatment and comply with the safety plan, R.W. was adjudicated a child in
need of assistance in October 2020.
1 R.W.’s father is reportedly deceased. 2 The parental rights of S.G.’s father were also terminated, and he does not appeal. 3
Thereafter, the mother’s pattern of drug use continued. She was
unsuccessfully discharged from in-patient treatment in August 2021. In
September, S.G. was born. Her cord test returned positive for methamphetamine,
amphetamines, and THC. The DHHS did not approve C.W. to live with her mother
and the children due to lack of cooperation throughout the case. The children left
their grandmother’s home in November. S.G. was placed with a friend of the
family, while R.W. was placed with her maternal aunt. The mother was residing
variously in her car or in the hotel where her boyfriend was residing. She was
arrested in November and has been incarcerated since then. She pled guilty to
third-degree burglary, and she was already on probation for burglary and forgery.
The court sentenced her to indeterminate confinement not to exceed fifteen years
with no mandatory minimum. At the time of the termination hearing in June 2022,
the mother had served seven months in prison and hoped to be released on parole
within a matter of months. The court terminated C.W.’s parental rights to both
children. C.W. filed a timely appeal.
II. Review.
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. See In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “We will uphold an order terminating parental rights
where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for
termination. Evidence is clear and convincing when there is no serious or
substantial doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 431 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (internal citation
omitted). We give weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings, especially those 4
about witness credibility, although they are not binding. See Iowa R. App.
P. 6.904(3)(g); C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492.
III. Discussion.
Iowa courts use a three-step analysis to review the termination of parental
rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). Those steps include whether:
(1) grounds for termination have been established, (2) termination is in the
children’s best interests, and (3) we should exercise any of the permissive
exceptions to termination. Id. at 472–73. Here, the juvenile court found the State
proved by clear and convincing evidence three grounds for terminating the
mother’s parental rights for each child. We may affirm if the record supports
termination on any one ground. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012).
We note the mother does not contest the grounds supporting termination pursuant
to paragraphs (f) (as to R.W.) and (h) (as to S.G.) of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)
(2022). Rather, she contends termination is not in the best interests of the children.
By not challenging termination under paragraph (f) as to R.W. and (h) as to S.G.,
the mother has waived any claim of error on that ground. See In re N.N.,
No. 21-1978, 2022 WL 610318, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2022) (holding failure
to challenge one of the grounds for termination results in waiver of any claim of
error on that ground). Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's conclusion that
those statutory grounds for termination have been established.
In determining best interests, we look to the framework described in
section 232.116(2). See In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687, 690–91 (Iowa 2010). That
provision requires that we “give primary consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to
the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the 5
child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the
child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The “defining elements” of the best-interests
analysis are the children’s safety and “need for a permanent home.” In re H.S., 805
N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted).
We may glean insight to a child’s future “from evidence of the parent’s past
performance for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care
that parent is capable of providing.” A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 778 (citation omitted).
Here, the mother’s track record is not favorable. Her parental rights have been
terminated with respect to three other children. She has struggled to maintain
housing and battled with substance abuse for many years now. We cannot say
that the mother has demonstrated promise toward offering a safe and permanent
home for the children. We will not deprive the children of permanency based on
the hope that someday the mother will be able to do so. See In re A.M., 843
N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014). Furthermore, the children are each in stable homes
with their respective placements. Each placement presents a long-term option and
offers the opportunity for the children to maintain a relationship with each other
and their siblings. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b); In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212,
225 (Iowa 2016) (noting a child’s favorable integration into a foster placement
supports finding termination is in the child’s best interests).
Finally, the mother argues against termination of her rights to R.W. because
this child is in the custody of her maternal aunt.3 See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a)
(stating the court “need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child
3The mother requested a guardianship during the termination hearing but does not renew this request on appeal. 6
if the court finds . . . [a] relative has legal custody of the child”). The provisions of
section 232.116(3) are “permissive, not mandatory.” A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 475
(Iowa 2018). The decision to use section 232.116(3) to save the parent-child
relationship is discretionary and depends on the facts of each case. Id. Here, we
decline to preserve the mother’s parental rights based on the child’s familial
placement. “An appropriate determination to terminate a parent-child relationship
is not to be countermanded by the ability and willingness of a family relative to take
the child.” Id. (citation omitted). We instead look to the child’s best interests. See
id. Having done so, we conclude the children’s best interests are served by
termination.