In the Interest of L.K., A.H., and T.H., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0425
Filed June 18, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF L.K., A.H., and T.H.,
Minor Children,

T.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour,

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro Law, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Michelle R. Becker, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Shannon L. Wallace of Youth Law Center, attorney and guardian ad litem

for minor children.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and

Sandy, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

After more than three years of family-reunification services,1 the district

court entered an order terminating the mother’s parental rights to her three

children, born in 2015, 2018, and 2023.2 The mother appeals, claiming the State

failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the court and termination is not

in the children’s best interests because of the bond she shares with them. She

also claims her due process rights were violated “when the court permitted hearsay

evidence to be admitted at the termination trial.” Upon our de novo review, see In

re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 2019), we affirm the termination of the mother’s

parental rights.

I. Hearsay Evidence

We turn first to the mother’s evidentiary challenge. She claims the court

abused its discretion by considering “inadmissible” hearsay evidence and she “did

not receive a fair trial.” The mother does not specify what evidence she argues is

hearsay. Her failure to “point us to the facts she believes support reversal waives

error.” In re of C.B., No. 20-0048, 2020 WL 1049888, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.

Mar. 4, 2020) (citing In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (“A broad, all

encompassing argument is insufficient to identify error in cases of de novo

review.”)).

1 This family most recently came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health

and Human Services (the department) in 2021. Services were also provided to
the family in 2018, to address concerns similar to those present this case.
2 The parental rights of the father of L.K. and A.H. were previously terminated. The

parental rights of the father of T.H. were not terminated; in November 2024, he
was provided a six-month extension to work toward reunification.
3

We elect to proceed to the mother’s claim, however, by analyzing the

exhibits and testimony she objected to on hearsay grounds at the termination

hearing—specifically a statement from her therapist; a Family Centered Services

(FCS) visit note; and emails from A.H.’s teacher, the children’s therapist, and the

children’s doctor.3

In deciding to allow the challenged evidence, the district court observed that

our supreme court has determined hearsay evidence is admissible in termination-

of-parental-rights hearings. See, e.g., In re E.J.R., 400 N.W.2d 531, 532–33

(Iowa 1987). The mother’s attorney acknowledged such and cited this court’s

holding in In re J.M., No. 02-1768, 2002 WL 31883595, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.

Dec. 30, 2002), as “consistent with” the ruling in E.J.R. Ultimately, the court

admitted the evidence subject to the mother’s objection. Finding no error in the

court’s admission of the challenged evidence,4 we affirm on this issue.

II. Grounds for Termination

Next, the mother claims the State did not prove termination by clear and

convincing evidence. “Termination of parental rights under chapter 232 follows a

three-step analysis.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). First, the court

must determine whether a statutory ground for termination exists. Id. Here, the

court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code

3 The mother also objected to two other email exhibits offered by the guardian ad

litem (GAL), but the GAL withdrew those exhibits.
4 Specifically regarding the testimony from the mother’s therapist relating to the

opinion of the children’s therapist as to whether the children are suffering from
trauma, even assuming that testimony was inadmissible hearsay, it was
cumulative of other evidence presented and therefore not prejudicial. See In re
S.D., No. 22-0683, 2022 WL 2347512, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
4

section 232.116(1)(f) (2024) as to the older children, L.K. and A.H., and under

section 232.116(h) as to the youngest child, T.H. These two paragraphs permit

termination upon clear and convincing proof that (1) the children meet the age

requirements of the applicable subparagraphs; (2) the children have been

adjudicated in need of assistance; (3) the children have been removed from the

physical custody of the parents for the time specified in the applicable

subparagraphs; and (4) the children cannot be returned to the custody of the

parent. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f), (h).

The mother challenges only the fourth element under both paragraphs,

contending the children could be returned to her custody at the time of the

termination hearing in December 2024. Specifically, she claims that she

“demonstrated through her participation in therapy, with her interactions with the

children and her care that the reasons for adjudication no longer existed and the

children should have been returned to her care and custody.”

L.K. and A.H. were removed from the mother’s custody in August 2021, for

reports of domestic violence (between the mother and multiple individuals); the

mother’s methamphetamine and marijuana use; unsanitary and unsafe living

conditions; and the mother’s mental health concerns. At that time, the children

had been informally residing with the maternal grandmother, but they had

unsupervised contact with the mother. The children were adjudicated in need of

assistance. The mother engaged in services, and in February 2023, the children

were returned to her custody. T.H. was born in April. The three children were

removed from the mother’s custody approximately six months later, due to similar

concerns as those initially present. The mother blamed the department for the way
5

her case had progressed. At the termination hearing, however, the mother

acknowledged the children were removed from her custody in fall 2023 due to

“[t]attooing the children, being exposed and staying around unapproved in—like

unapproved people and homes, mental health.”

True, the mother had participated in therapy for more than three years since

the inception of this case in 2021 (although in 2024, the mother was discharged

from her prior therapist due to no-shows at scheduled appointments). At the

termination hearing, however, the mother’s current therapist opined the mother

had not “show[n] stability in the long-term in regards to her mental health.” The

therapist testified the mother’s longest period of “sustained stability” has been

“about two to three months.” She further testified that the mother had not taken

responsibility or accountability for her lack of supervision of the children or allowing

them to be around unsafe people.

Relating to the mother’s interactions with the children, the mother testified

she had only seen the children in person three times since September 2024

because her visits had been suspended due to her escalating behaviors. The

mother also reported that T.H.’s father has a history of child abuse and is “unsafe.”

She agreed there was a no-contact order in place between T.H.’s father and T.H.,

stemming from his physical abuse of T.H. Yet the mother had recently allowed the

father around T.H. during a visit with the children.

On the relevant inquiry to this issue, the court found:

At the present time, the children in interest cannot be returned to
Mother’s custody as provided in Iowa Code section 232.102 because
they would be subjected to further adjudicatory harm as Mother
continues to have unresolved mental health issues, lack[s] the ability
to meet the children’s emotional and mental health needs, continues
6

to associate with unsafe persons, and lacks the ability to provide
appropriate supervision, which were all issues which led to removal.

We concur and conclude the elements of section 232.116(f) and (h) were satisfied.

III. Best Interests

Termination also must serve the children’s best interests. To determine

best interests, we “give primary consideration 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 condition and needs of the child[ren].” Id.

§ 232.116(2).

The mother argues termination is not in the children’s best interests due to

the bond she shares with them.5 The record confirms the children share a bond

with the mother. That said, that bond must be viewed through the lens of the

mother’s overall presence in their young lives. L.K. and A.H. were removed from

the mother’s care in 2021, and they were living primarily with their grandmother

before that time. Although they returned to the mother’s custody for a portion of

2023, they have spent much of the last four years out of her custody. And T.H.

has been out of the mother’s custody nearly all his life.

“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

5 “We address only those steps raised by a parent.” In re A.B., No. 24-1979, 2025
WL 1324338, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 7, 2025). The mother does not separately
claim her bond with the children should preclude termination pursuant to the
permissive exception under section 232.116(3), so we analyze her claim only as a
best-interests challenge. See In re L.A., __ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 855764,
at *3 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (“We interpret the father’s bond-based argument as
a best-interests argument rather than a permissive-exception argument because
his issue heading referenced only best interests and that is the thrust of his
argument.”).
7

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). Here, despite years of

services, many of the issues that prompted the department’s involvement with the

family remained unresolved at the time of the termination hearing. Termination is

in the children’s best interests.

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.