IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1843
Filed January 23, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF L.H., S.H., and A.H.,
Minor Children,
A.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Robert W. Davison, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kimberly A. Opatz of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020).
2
MAHAN, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019).1 She challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the statutory ground for termination and contends termination
is not in the children’s best interests. On our de novo review, see In re L.T., 924
N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 2019), we affirm.
This family most recently came to the attention of the department of human
services in July 2018,2 due to concerns about methamphetamine use by the
mother, the inhabitability of the mother’s home, reports of prostitution by the
mother, and traffic coming in and out of the home “all hours of the day and night.”
The children were removed from the home and adjudicated in need of assistance.3
The mother was ordered to complete mental-health and substance-abuse
evaluations and participate in drug testing. Fully-supervised visits were
established with the children. With the exception of exercising “more visits than
she missed,” the mother did not meet any other case-plan requirements. The State
filed a petition to terminate parental rights in June 2019.
The termination hearing was held in August. The mother testified that her
boyfriend, who was known to use methamphetamine, “recently moved out over the
past week.” She stated she last used methamphetamine “three weeks ago.” She
explained she did not comply with drug tests due to “transportation” issues,
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
2 The family previously came to the department’s attention in 2012, 2017, and early
2018.
3 The mother and father are married, but do not reside together. The mother’s
older child from a different relationship was placed with his father.
3
“confusion over the testing number,” and because she “forgot.” But she stated she
was “more than willing to do so” going forward. She acknowledged she had not
completed substance-abuse or mental-health evaluations as she was required to
do, and she admitted she had lied about completing the evaluations. The mother
asked for additional time to get her children returned to her care, stating, “I would
like to be given that time to at least put forth the effort.” She testified, “I kept
thinking I had more time to do these things,” but “I realize that I definitely need to
do this now or never.”
The department and guardian ad litem recommended termination of
parental rights. The department caseworker testified the mother could not safely
parent the children at that time and it was unlikely the children could be returned
to her care in six months. The juvenile court did not order additional time to work
toward reunification and terminated the mother’s parental rights. The record
establishes the children cannot be returned safely to the mother’s custody at
present. Accordingly, there is clear and convincing evidence for termination of the
mother’s parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f).
The mother contends termination is not in the children’s best interests, “in
part because of the bond between the children and their mother.” See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(3)(c) (stating court need not terminate if termination would be
detrimental to the children due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship).
The exceptions stated in section 232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory. In re
D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474–75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). In deciding whether to apply
an exception to termination, we consider “the unique circumstances of each case
4
and the best interests of the child.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014)
(citation omitted). With regard to the parent-child bond, the juvenile court noted:
There are none known [exceptions to termination] in the instant case
because while the girls are bonded to their parents their need for
permanency and a safe drug free environment outweighs any trauma
that will result from termination of parental rights. The court believes
it is in the girls interest and well-being to remain together to love and
support each other.
Although the mother appears to have made some recent realizations with
regard to her journey toward stable mental health and sobriety, without more
promise that the children could safely return to her care now or in the near future,
the court must focus on the children’s need for stability and permanency. See In
re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012) (“It is simply not in the best interests of
children to continue to keep them in temporary foster homes while the natural
parents get their lives together.”); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000)
(“Once the limitation period lapses, termination proceedings must be viewed with
a sense of urgency.”). Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support
termination, termination is in the children’s best interests, and no permissive factor
persuades us termination should not occur, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.