In the Interest of M.A., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0940
Filed September 4, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.,
Minor Child,

A.A., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Gary P. Strausser,

Judge.

A mother appeals a bridge modification order entered in a child-in-need-of-

assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED.

Jeannette Keller of Bowman, DePree & Murphy, West Liberty, for appellant

mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Mark J. Neary, Iowa City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and

Sandy, JJ.
2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A mother appeals a bridge modification order entered in a child-in-need-of-

assistance (CINA) proceeding and transferring jurisdiction over custody and care

of her child to the district court. She challenges (1) the juvenile court’s efforts to

reunite her with her child prior to the entry of the bridge modification order and

(2) the portion of the order placing the child in the father’s physical and sole legal

custody, as well as the conditions placed on her visitation with the child. Upon our

review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

In early 2024, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

learned that the mother was using methamphetamine in the home she shared with

her ten-year-old son, M.A. HHS also became aware that the mother’s roommate

was selling methamphetamine from the residence. The mother agreed to a safety

plan that placed the child in his father’s physical care until she completed drug

testing, but she soon withdrew from the safety plan and refused drug testing. As

a result, the juvenile court removed M.A. from the mother’s custody and placed

him in the father’s physical care subject to HHS supervision. After a hearing in

March 2024, the court adjudicated M.A. a CINA.

Throughout the CINA proceedings, the mother has struggled with mental-

health and substance-use issues. From January through September, the mother

failed to attend drug testing on seven occasions. On five occasions, she tested

positive for marijuana, amphetamines, and methamphetamine.

After an October permanency hearing, the juvenile court entered an order

finding HHS had made reasonable efforts at reunification and the child remaining
3

“in the custody of the mother is contrary to the welfare of the child and is not in the

child’s best interests.” The juvenile court changed the permanency goal to placing

the child with the father. The parties agreed that the permanency goal was to be

accomplished by bridge modification order.

On November 22, 2024, the mother filed notice to the juvenile court that she

was withdrawing her agreement to the entry of a bridge modification order and

asked the juvenile court to close the CINA case. At a contested hearing, the

juvenile court heard testimony from the mother, the father, the HHS worker, and

the mother’s mental-health caseworker.

After hearings in December 2024 and January 2025, the juvenile court

entered a bridge modification order, granting the father sole legal custody and

physical care of M.A. The court granted the mother not less than four hours per

week of supervised visitation, which would become unsupervised if the mother

completed substance-use treatment. The mother now appeals.

II. Standard of Review

We review CINA proceedings de novo and, in doing so, give weight to the

juvenile court’s fact findings even though we are not bound by them. In re D.D.,

955 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Iowa 2021). Our primary concern is the child’s best

interests. Id.

III. Reasonable Efforts

We start our review by addressing the mother’s challenge to the court’s

reasonable-efforts finding. In this case’s context, reasonable efforts are “the efforts

made to . . . eliminate the need for removal of the child or make it possible for the

child to safely return to the [mother]’s home.” Iowa Code § 232.102A(1)(a) (2024).
4

The reasonable-efforts mandate requires HHS to make every reasonable effort to

return children to the home as soon as possible consistent with the children’s best

interests. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). This mandate focuses on

services to improve parenting, which includes visitation. Id. HHS must evaluate

the reasonable efforts it is obligated to provide based on the circumstances of the

case. See In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa 2000).

The child’s guardian ad-litem and the State contest that the mother has

preserved error regarding the juvenile court’s finding that a bridge modification

order was appropriate because the mother did not appeal the permanency order.

Regardless, our review of the record shows HHS made reasonable efforts to

eliminate the need for removal. The mother has both mental-health and

substance-use issues. The mother has made some progress in addressing her

mental-health concerns through counseling and medication. Despite this, there

have been several incidents throughout this case where visits with M.A. have been

cancelled due to the mother being aggressive towards providers. Further, the

mother has failed to address her substance-use issues. Throughout this case, the

mother has consistently refused drug testing and tested positive on those

occasions she complied. Although HHS has offered the mother services to

address her substance use and mental health, she consistently refused them or

attempted to delay her participation. Based on these circumstances, we agree

with the juvenile court’s determination that HHS made reasonable efforts toward

reunification.
5

IV. Bridge Modification Order

We turn next to the mother’s challenge to the terms of the bridge

modification order. A bridge modification order returns “jurisdiction over the child’s

custody, physical care, and visitation to the district court” and closes a CINA case

when certain criteria have been met. Iowa Code § 232.103A(1). The mother

contends the bridge modification order entered in this case (1) erroneously granted

the father sole legal and physical care of the child and (2) unduly restricted contact

between the mother and child. She does not claim the statutory criteria for the

imposition of a bridge have not been met. See id. § 232.103B. So, we limit our

review to the conditions of the bridge modification order. See In re B.C., No. 24-

1069, 2024 WL 4620164, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2024) (declining to address

the statutory conditions for entry of a bridge modification order when no challenge

is made to those conditions).

A. Legal and Physical care

First, the mother contends the terms of the bridge modification order, which

changed the parents’ legal relationships with the child from joint legal custody and

joint physical care to the father having sole legal custody and physical care, are

not in the child’s best interests.

Our overriding consideration in determining custody and physical care

issues is the child’s best interests. See In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d

97, 101 (Iowa 2007); Iowa Code § 598.41(3); see also In re Marriage of Winter,

223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974) (setting forth factors guiding the court in

addition to those identified in Iowa Code section 598.41(3)).
6

We agree with the juvenile court’s decision to grant the father sole legal

custody and physical care of the child. The evidence supporting that decision

include the mother’s failure to adequately address her substance use and her

inability to recognize the detrimental effect that her methamphetamine use has on

her child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(a) (outlining best interests of the child

include “[w]hether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child”).

Further, the father has provided a stable and safe home for the child. Changing

the custodial arrangement would be psychologically and emotionally harmful to the

child. See id. § 598.41(3)(b).

After taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, we agree with the

juvenile court that the CINA proceedings could safely close by entering a bridge

modification order. The only impediment to closure of the CINA proceedings is the

mother’s instability. The negative impact of that instability was curbed by the terms

of the bridge modification order. As a result, we also agree that it is in the child’s

best interests to give the father sole legal custody and physical care of the child.

B. Visitation

Second, the mother argues that the terms of the bridge modification order

unnecessarily restrict her time with the child. The bridge modification order

granted the mother “not less than [four] hours per week” of supervised visitation.

The parents mutually agreed on the supervisors for the mother’s visits. Further,

the court granted the mother progressive visitation, allowing unsupervised visits if

the mother completed substance-use treatment. “[T]he nature and extent of

visitation is always controlled by the best interests of the child.” In re M.B., 553

N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
7

We find that M.A.’s best interests are served by the visitation arrangement

established by the juvenile court. There are concerns about the child’s safety and

well-being if visits with the mother are unsupervised. The mother argues she

should be granted additional unsupervised visits after two months of clean drug

testing. But we share the concerns the juvenile court expressed about the

mother’s continued unaddressed substance-use issues. See In re S.R., 600

N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). If the mother completes substance-use

treatment, she will be granted unsupervised visitation. Given the mother’s history

of substance use and her evasion of drug testing during the pendency of this case,

we agree with the juvenile court that it is in the child’s best interests to require that

the mother complete substance-use treatment before she is allowed unsupervised

visitation.

V. Disposition

We affirm the issuance of a bridge modification order granting the father

sole legal custody and physical care, as well as the visitation restrictions imposed

by the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.