IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1554
Filed December 6, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF C.L.,
Minor Child,
S.L., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Louise M. Jacobs,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Jacob L. Mason of JL Mason Law, P.L.L.C., Ankeny, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating parental rights to her child,
C.L., pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (h) (2017).1 The mother
acknowledges that grounds for termination exist but argues the court need not
terminate her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) (child
in legal custody of a relative). She contends the department of human services
(DHS) did not investigate the maternal grandfather as a possible caretaker of the
child and, if the child was placed with a relative, termination would have been
unnecessary. DHS considered placement with the maternal grandfather and
decided that he would not be an appropriate placement given his criminal history.
In fact, the grandfather was still subject to supervision by a federal parole officer
at the time of the termination hearing. Placement and a change of custody to the
1
Section 232.116(1) authorizes a court to terminate a parent’s rights where:
(g) The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
(2) The court has terminated parental rights pursuant to section
232.117 with respect to another child who is a member of the same family
or a court of competent jurisdiction in another state has entered an order
involuntarily terminating parental rights with respect to another child who
is a member of the same family.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent
continues to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services which
would correct the situation.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that an additional
period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation.
(h) The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the
child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the
last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less
than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be
returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section
232.102 at the present time.
3
grandfather were not in the child’s best interests because the child is at an
adoptable age, has bonded with the foster family, and the mother—who is in
federal custody—has little likelihood of gaining stability in her life in the near
future. Section 232.116(3)(a) is not applicable because the child is in the
custody of DHS. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014).
Upon our de novo review, see id. at 110, we find grounds for termination
exist, the child’s statutory best interests are furthered by termination of parental
rights and adoption, see id. at 113, and no permissive factor weighs against
termination. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.