In the Interest of J.B., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1659
Filed January 9, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF J.B.,
Minor Child,

M.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton,

Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights

to her son. AFFIRMED.

Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan and Rolfes, Clinton, for appellant

mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.
2

SANDY, Judge.

The mother, M.B., appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her

parental rights to her son, J.B.1 We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

The child was born in May 2023. The child had negative urine tests at birth,

but blood testing revealed the child had been exposed to amphetamine and

methamphetamine sometime in utero. The mother denied she had used

methamphetamine during her pregnancy, but a subsequent positive drug test for

methamphetamine and amphetamine and her history of heavy methamphetamine

use suggest otherwise.2 The juvenile court found her not credible on this claim.

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) wanted to start

a voluntary case to provide a safety plan for the child while the mother received

sobriety services. HHS believed she had simply relapsed sometime during

pregnancy based on the negative urine test on the day of delivery and the maternal

grandmother’s claim that she saw no signs of use during the mother’s pregnancy.

The mother failed to respond to HHS’s repeated attempts to facilitate those

services. The child was then removed from the home in June 2023. The mother

tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and cocaine in July 2023.

She again denied ever using illegal substances. She also attended none of HHS’s

eighteen subsequent random tests—despite many of those tests being scheduled

1 The father’s rights were also terminated but he does not appeal.
2 In 2022, the mother admitted to police that she was a daily methamphetamine

user after they executed a search warrant at her home and found
methamphetamine paraphernalia. Both of her older children living with her at that
time now reside with other individuals.
3

at her home to accommodate transportation and work issues. Instead, the mother

intermittently provided her own drug tests. The child was adjudicated a child in

need of assistance in August 2023.

The mother’s employment status is unclear. At one point she worked at

Carpet Land but claimed she was fired because the termination hearing took too

long. The juvenile court noted that the hearing had been scheduled for the full day.

HHS has not been permitted to enter her home. The mother claimed she did not

realize until the day of the termination hearing that HHS wanted to see her home.

She admitted that it is unsafe for the child due to it currently being “remodeled.”

The mother failed to consistently participate in Family Centered Services

(FCS) despite FCS employees trying to schedule services many times. After

eventually getting sessions scheduled, she only sometimes attended. She has not

attended an FCS session since March 2024.

She also has not participated in substance use treatment despite being

ordered to do so in November 2023. She claims her appointments keep getting

cancelled, which the juvenile court noted “is entirely possible, [but] it is hard to

believe she couldn’t get an evaluation at that facility for months when they

complete hundreds of evaluations each month at their Davenport facility.” After

HHS suggested Rosecrance, a less busy facility, the mother claimed to have

secured an appointment. Yet when contacted by HHS, Rosecrance stated that the

mother had not contacted them since 2022.

Despite a recommendation for mental-health treatment for over a year, no

participation has been documented. Court funds were released to pay the cost of

a psychological evaluation. While the mother told HHS and a FCS employee she
4

had appointments, the juvenile court found that was untrue. She finally made an

appointment in May 2024 and left after an hour despite being told it was a four-

hour appointment. When HHS had last checked she never finished the evaluation.

The mother testified she finished the evaluation in June 2024.

As the district court summarized:

For over a year HHS has offered substance abuse treatment,
drug testing, mental health referrals, a free psychological evaluation,
frequent supervised visitation, and parenting instruction. The mother
has been offered transportation when requested. She was offered
entry into Family Wellness Court early in the case but could not enter
until she started treatment, which she did not do. When workers
made appointments to meet her at her home, she usually cancelled,
moved them to another place, or simply wasn’t home. She has
intentionally not made herself available for drug testing, even when
it was provided at her home. [The mother] flat out lied to [the HHS
case worker] about receiving drug treatment services from
Rosecrance—she had not had contact with that facility since 2022,
and her individual mental health treatment was never confirmed by
[the mental health provider] . . . .

The court ultimately terminated the mother’s parental rights to the child under Iowa

Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2023).

II. Standard of Review

We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re L.T.,

924 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 2019). We give weight to the juvenile court’s factual

findings but are not bound by them. In re M.D., 921 N.W.2d 229, 232 (Iowa 2018).

The paramount concern is the children’s best interests. L.T., 924 N.W.2d at 529.

III. Discussion

A. Grounds for Termination

“When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one

statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find
5

supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). Failure

to challenge termination under any ground for the termination waives “any claim of

error related to [that ground].” In re K.K., 16-0151, 2016 WL 1129330, at *1 (Iowa

Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2016) (citing Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 870 (Iowa 1996)

(“[O]ur review is confined to those propositions relied upon by the appellant for

reversal on appeal.” (alteration in original)).

Although the mother’s parental rights were terminated under both

paragraphs (d) and (h) of section 232.116, the mother’s petition on appeal only

discusses paragraph (d)—she does not challenge the termination of her parental

rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). She has thus waived this ground

and we affirm termination of her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).

B. Best Interests of the Child

“As in all juvenile proceedings, our fundamental concern is the best

interests of the child.” In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). “Even after

we have determined that statutory grounds for termination exist, we must still

determine whether termination is in the children’s best interests.” In re A.M., 843

N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted). “We ‘give primary consideration

to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing

and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and

needs of the child.’” Id. (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). It is well established

that we will not “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.” Id. (citation

omitted).
6

The mother’s sole argument on this point is her recitation of a general

concern for the parent-child relationship, citing no particular facts or argument

relating to her bond with the child in this case: “The mother believes that the best

interest of the child is to be returned to her, and that there is no current clear and

convincing evidence to refute her position.”

We disagree. The mother has failed to address her substance use or

mental health, failed to participate in drug testing, failed to engage in FCS, and,

per her testimony, failed to provide a safe home for the child. In its thoughtful and

well-reasoned order, the district court stated the following:

The guardian ad litem recommends termination of parental rights.
[The child] is fully integrated into his foster home and identifies them
as his family. While he seems to enjoy time spent with his mother
and recognizes her as a person in his life, he does not appear to
have a mother/son bond with her or show distress when being
separated from her. On the other hand, [the child] is clearly bonded
to his foster parents. This has been observed by his guardian ad
litem and his [court Appointed Special Advocates]. The foster family
has been his family throughout the duration of this case.

We agree that termination is in the child’s best interests.

C. Conclusion

We affirm the district court’s termination of the mother’s rights.

AFFIRMED.