IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-0527
Filed July 13, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF S.H., L.H., A.H., and P.H.,
Minor Children,
L.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Emily Dean,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four children.
AFFIRMED.
Kyler D. Massner of Cray Law Firm, P.L.C., Burlington, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick (until withdrawal) and
Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Heidi D. Van Winkle of Van Winkle Law Office, Burlington, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
This case involves four children under the age of ten. The juvenile court
terminated the parental rights of their mother—Laura—largely because of her drug
use and dishonesty.1 Challenging that ruling, Laura raises four issues. (1) Did the
State prove by clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be
returned to her care? (2) Was the juvenile court correct in declining to delay
permanency for six months? (3) Was termination of her parental rights in the
children’s best interests? (4) Was termination a better option than a
guardianship?2 Because we answer “yes” to all four questions, we affirm.3
Laura has five children. Her oldest son just turned eighteen. He was raised
by his grandmother in Texas. The termination order involves the four younger
children: P.H. (born in 2013); A.H. (born in 2014); L.H. (born in 2017); and S.H.
(born in 2019). The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services removed
them from Laura’s custody in December 2021 when she was using
methamphetamine while caring for them.
1 The court also terminated their father’s parental rights. He does not appeal.
2 The mother’s attorney lists these four complaints under a single heading in her
petition on appeal. The body of her argument does not separate them out,
hindering our ability to analyze each issue.
3 Our review is de novo. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022). We
recognize that the juvenile court is in a better position to determine witness
credibility. In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998). And we respect the
juvenile court’s fact findings. L.B., 970 N.W.2d at 313. But they do not dictate our
result on legal questions. Id. The State must prove the grounds for termination by
clear and convincing evidence. Id. Our polestar is the children’s best interests.
See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially)
(identifying safety and the need for a permanent home as the “defining elements”
in the best-interests determination).
3
That incident was not the department’s first encounter with the family. L.H.
tested positive for illegal substances at birth. And Laura was using
methamphetamine while pregnant with S.H.
After the 2021 removal, the department placed the three sisters—P.H.,
A.H., and S.H.— with a family friend. Their brother, L.H., was placed with an aunt.
They remain with those caregivers, who ensure the siblings stay in regular contact.
Laura’s struggle with substance abuse is long-standing. She recalled trying
marijuana at age twelve and then cocaine and methamphetamine at age fourteen.
She’s tried in-patient treatment at least six times with varying levels of success. In
fall 2022, she was successfully discharged from the Sioux City Rosecrance
Jackson Center with the understanding that she would follow up with outpatient
treatment at Alcohol & Drug Dependency Services (ADDS) in Burlington. But
Laura did not go for outpatient treatment at ADDS—though she told the
department that she did. In the words of the juvenile court: “Laura has not been
honest whatsoever that she is attending outpatient treatment which was
recommended following her inpatient treatment.”
Her lack of candor continued. The social worker recalled troubling
conversations with Laura in mid-December 2022 and early January 2023. Laura’s
eyelids were “very heavy,” she slurred her words, and she jumped from subject to
subject—leading the worker to believe she was under the influence. But Laura
denied using drugs. Seeing her lack of progress in addressing her substance
abuse, the State petitioned to terminate Laura’s parental rights in January 2023.
The juvenile court granted the petition following a March 2023 hearing. The court
4
terminated her rights based on Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2023).
She now appeals.
Statutory Ground/Deferred Permanency. In passing, Laura suggests
that the State failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the children could
not be safely returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing. See
Iowa Code §§ 232.116(1)(f)(4), (h)(4); see also In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707
(Iowa 2010) (“The record does not provide any evidence that D.W. could safely be
returned home with A.W. at the time of the termination hearing.”). But her bottom
line is that she “was deserving of an extension.” See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)
(allowing juvenile court to postpone termination for up to six months if the need for
removal will no longer exist). We reject both notions.
Laura claims to have been drug-free for over three months. But that claim
is belied by the record. In the months right before the termination hearing, Laura
continued to show behavioral signs of drug use and continued to need substance-
abuse treatment. The State offered proof that she hadn’t yet achieved the stability
to be a trustworthy caregiver for the four children. And she hasn’t made the strides
needed to show that this goal could be reached in the next six months.
Best Interests/Closeness of Parent-Child Relationship. Laura next
raises a best-interests challenge under Iowa Code section 232.116(2). In
considering whether termination is in the children’s best interests, we give “primary
consideration” to their safety, “to the best placement for furthering [their] long-term
nurturing and growth,” and to their “physical, mental, and emotional condition and
needs.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). We may also consider their integration into their
foster families. Id. § 232.116(2)(b).
5
Laura believes the juvenile court ignored her close bond with the children.
She acknowledges missing visits with them. But she contends it was appropriate
to do so when she was under the influence. We find cold comfort in Laura’s
decision to not come to visits while high. It was her drug use that subjected the
children to instability and trauma. They agonized about her well-being. For
example, A.H. said the social worker’s kids were “lucky they don’t have to worry
about drugs.” Meanwhile, they are doing well in their current placements, which
intend to maintain the bond between the siblings. Given these facts, termination
was in the children’s best interests.
Guardianship. As a final thought, Laura urges that the juvenile court
should have preserved her parental rights and placed the children in a
guardianship with her mother in Texas. Our supreme court has rejected the notion
that guardianships are a better long-term option than termination. See In re
A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). And it is not the preferable path here.
The department social worker testified that these children—after so much
upheaval in their lives—need a “permanent solution” not afforded by a
guardianship. We agree. After our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court’s
decision to terminate Laura’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.