IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0581
Filed September 1, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF K.D. and K.D.,
Minor Children,
K.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children.
AFFIRMED.
Elizabeth A. Ryan of Ryan Legal Services, Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General and Natalie A. Deerr, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Paul White of Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children. 1
The mother argues the juvenile court erred in finding the children could not be
returned to her care at the time of termination, the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, and
termination is not in the best interests of the children due to the strong bonds with
her.
This family came to the attention of DHS following an incident of domestic
violence between the mother and father in January 2020. The parents engaged in
an altercation in the presence of the then three- and four-year-old children,
resulting in the father throwing a glass at the mother, which rendered her
unconscious. The father left the home, and the children sought the assistance of
a neighbor, who called emergency services. When the police arrived, they found
drug paraphernalia in the home. The children were removed from the parental
home in February and placed with a relative. This is not the first time this family
has been involved with DHS because of parental drug use. The mother has a
history of using methamphetamine, at times when caring for the children.
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance in May 2020. Since
that time, the mother has failed to engage in consistent substance-abuse and
mental-health treatment. The mother failed to consistently appear for drug testing
when she was requested to do so. Her hair-stat test in December was positive for
methamphetamine. The mother has engaged in visitation with the children, but
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
3
she has missed some. She has not been able to progress beyond supervised
visitation.
In January 2021, the juvenile court ordered that the permanency plan be
changed to termination of parental rights. The State petitioned for termination
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (g) (2021).2 The termination
hearing was held on March 30, 2021. The mother failed to appear. Her parental
rights were terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f) and (g). The mother
appeals.
We review terminations of parental rights de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d
212, 219 (Iowa 2016). “We are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact,
but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.”
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Our review examines whether the
State proved the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Id.
“Evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ when there are no ‘serious or substantial
doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.’” Id.
(quoting In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000)). Our primary concern is
the best interests of the children. C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492.
In her petition on appeal, the mother insists that error has been preserved
by filing a timely notice of appeal or, in the alternative, any issues not preserved
are due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The mother raised the same error-
preservation argument when her rights to another child were terminated. See In
re B.G., No. 20-1189, 2020 WL 7022392, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2020).
2 The State also petitioned for termination pursuant to section 232.116(1)(l) but
dismissed that ground at the termination hearing.
4
We reiterate this court’s prior conclusion that timely “notice of appeal is insufficient
to preserve error for review.” Id. at *2.
In her petition on appeal, the mother provided legal citations solely to
indicate the statutory grounds for adjudication and termination and to support her
arguments for error preservation. She cited no supporting legal authority for the
merits of her arguments. Our rules state a petition on appeal from a termination
proceeding must comply with the form provided, which instructs petitioners to
provide the court with references to supporting legal authority. Iowa Rs. App.
P. 6.201(1)(d), .1401 Form-5. Because the mother has not provided any legal
authority to support her arguments on appeal, we deem the issues waived.
To the extent the mother raises ineffective-assistance issues, our review
will follow the same two-part test applied in criminal cases.3 In re D.W., 385
N.W.2d 570, 579 (Iowa 1986); e.g., B.G., 2020 WL 7022392, at *2–3. In order to
succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim, the claimant must prove “(1) that
counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) that actual prejudice resulted.
Unless both showings are made, the claim must fail.” D.W., 385 N.W.2d at 560.
This court had the opportunity to discuss error preservation through ineffective
assistance when the mother, and the same counsel, raised the issue during her
prior termination appeal. B.G., 2020 WL 7022392, at *2–3. Again, to the extent
the mother raised ineffective assistance only in passing and “[did] not provide any
3 The mother’s counsel represented her during the underlying juvenile court
proceedings. This is the same attorney who represented the mother during the
other child’s termination and appellate proceedings.
5
argument in her petition on appeal concerning [these] claim[s],” we will not
consider them. Id. at *2.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reach the following conclusions. The
State proved the grounds for termination pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) by clear and convincing evidence. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.
The record shows that reasonable efforts were provided to the mother and
no prejudice resulted from any alleged ineffective assistance. D.W., 385 N.W.2d
at 560.
These children need and deserve permanency now. “It is well-settled law
that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground
for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to
be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010). Although the children and mother do share a bond, it
does not overcome their need for proper care and stability.
We affirm.
AFFIRMED.