In the Interest of A.H. and J.H., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1144
Filed January 9, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF A.H. and J.H.,
Minor Children,

T.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon,

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.

AFFIRMED.

Ricki L. Osborn Stubbs of Osborn Stubbs Law Office, P.C., Fort Dodge, for

appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Alesha M. Sigmeth Roberts of Sigmeth Roberts Law, PLC, Clarion, attorney

and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
2

BULLER, Judge.

The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children:

A.H. (born 2019) and J.H. (born 2017). The children have separate fathers, both

of whose rights were terminated and neither of whom appeal. On review, we affirm

that termination of the mother’s rights is in the children’s best interests, no

permissive exception precludes termination, and an additional six months’ time for

reunification was not warranted.

Background Facts and Proceedings. This family came to the attention

of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in May 2022 after

the mother essentially abandoned the children with a daycare provider when the

mother was hospitalized. The mother had a complex mental-health and

substance-abuse history involving self-harm, suicide attempts, and struggles

caring for the children. She did not have an extensive support network. Under

strict guidelines and with significant supporting services following her initial

hospitalization, the children were placed with the mother three times—in June and

September 2022 and April 2023. But each placement ended within a month or two

following the mother’s suicide attempt or hospitalization. The mother was in and

out of treatment programs and the hospital throughout the entire life of the case—

at least twenty hospitalizations over a period of twenty-four months. She was

unable to attend numerous visits with the children due to hospitalizations and other

placements.

The children also exhibited challenging behaviors. The older child could be

“aggressive and assaultive towards himself and others at times,” destroyed school

property, and would take his anger out on the younger child. He was eventually
3

placed in a psychiatric mental health institute for children (PMIC), where he

remained at the time of the termination trial. The younger child was in a foster

home at the time of trial. The case worker was concerned the younger child was

“having the same behaviors” as the older child and would “blow-up” after contact

with him or the mother. The children were in therapy, but the family could not do

parent–child interaction therapy because the mother was too unstable.

At the time of trial, the mother had been in the hospital or a recovery

program for at least six weeks. She lost her apartment and vehicle, and she was

unemployed. And she had some positive test results for controlled substances,

though the case worker was uncertain if some of these were attributable to the

mother’s medications or hospital stays.

The county attorney, HHS, and the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) all

recommended termination of parental rights. Through her attorney, the mother

essentially agreed the statutory grounds had been met, but contested best

interests, briefly urged two permissive exceptions, and asked for additional time.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f) (2024). The mother appeals, and we review de novo. See

In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).

Best Interests.1 The mother challenges whether it was in the best interests

of the children to terminate her parental rights. On review, we give primary weight

“to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term

nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional

1 The petition on appeal conflates arguments about best interests with the request

for additional time. We do our best to adequately address them separately.
4

condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The juvenile court

put it well: “It is not safe for [the mother] to be left alone, let alone with her

children. . . . [The mother] cannot take care of herself, let alone [J.H.] and his

sister.” We recognize that both children have struggled in foster placements, but

we cannot say that is due to separation from the mother, as their significant

behavioral issues arose in at least some fashion while they were still in her care.

And we credit the GAL’s recommendation in favor of termination, as we agree with

her assessment that termination is best for the children’s long-term physical,

mental, and emotional wellbeing. Given the mother’s inability to consistently care

for herself or the children, her constant struggle to improve her mental health and

sustain sobriety, the progression of the permanency timelines in this case, and the

children’s need for stability, we affirm that termination of the mother’s parental

rights was in the children’s best interests.

Permissive Exceptions. The mother next urges the juvenile court should

have applied the permissive bond exception found in section 232.116(3)(c). To

invoke this exception, the mother bears the burden to prove by “clear and

convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the

time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” Iowa Code

§ 232.116(3)(c). We agree with the juvenile court that the mother failed to carry

her burden on this record. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa 2016)

(noting we consider the bond in the context of a case’s unique circumstances and

the child’s best interests). As the juvenile court explained:

no evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, was presented
which indicates that termination would be detrimental to the children
at this time due to the closeness of any parent-child relationship.
5

There is no evidence that the children will be adversely affected by
the termination of their parents’ parental rights. . . . Although the
children are arguably bonded with their mother, the short-term
distress that will accompany termination of her rights is dwarfed by
the long-term benefits [that accompany] termination.

While the mother has sincerely expressed she loves her children, and we believe

her, that is not enough to avoid termination. See In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169–

70 (Iowa 2021); In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010). We decline to apply

this exception.

The mother also urges the juvenile court should have considered the

permissive exception at section 232.116(3)(d), based on J.H.’s placement in PMIC.

See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(d) (allowing the court to thwart termination if “[i]t is

necessary to place the child in a hospital, facility, or institution for care and

treatment and the continuation of the parent-child relationship is not preventing a

permanent family placement for the child”). Assuming without deciding this issue

was adequately preserved, we cannot say we disagree with the juvenile court

declining to thwart termination related to J.H. on this basis. Although the mother’s

continued relationship will not prevent J.H.’s “permanent family placement” in the

immediate future due to his indefinite placement at PMIC, the exception is

permissive and the reasons we have expressed elsewhere in this opinion all tilt

convincingly toward termination. See In re M.H., No. 14-0884, 2014 WL 4635462,

at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014) (declining to apply the exception); In re L.R.,

No. 19-1116, 2019 WL 4678227, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2019) (same).

Additional Time. The mother also argues she should have received an

additional six months’ time to work toward reunification. “[T]he juvenile court may

deny termination and give the parent an additional six months for reunification only
6

if the need for removal ‘will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month

period.’” In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Code

§ 232.104(2)(b)). And the parent bears the burden to make that showing. Id.

at 322–24.

On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court the mother “is

nowhere close to being in a position to resume care of her children.” There is little

reason to believe the mother will achieve the “monumental tasks” of resolving her

chronic and severe mental-health, self-harm, and substance-abuse problems in

the next six months. And even if she did, she would still require additional time to

develop adequate parenting skills, obtain housing and transportation, and

otherwise prepare to resume care of the children.

“It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the

State has proved a ground for termination . . . by hoping someday a parent will

learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child[ren].” In re

P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010). And that is what we would have to do to

grant the mother relief here. Considering the children’s desperate need for

stability, bare hope that the mother’s mental health improves and her sobriety

persists is not a sufficient basis for delaying permanency. See id.

AFFIRMED.