In the Interest of A.B. and A.B.-M., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1241
Filed October 16, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B. and A.B.-M.,
Minor Children,

K.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

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

Judge.

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

children. AFFIRMED.

Christine Frederick of Zamora, Taylor & Frederick, Davenport, for appellant

mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Grishma Arumugam, Bettendorf, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

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

TABOR, Chief Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old

daughter, A.B., and three-year-old daughter, A.B.-M. She argues that terminating

her rights was not in the children’s best interests. After our independent review of

the record, we reach the same conclusion as the juvenile court.1 As that court

found, termination of the mother’s parental rights is the children’s “best chance at

long-term stability, growth, and healthy development.” So, we affirm.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

The children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services in January 2023, over concerns about domestic violence in the

home of the mother and her paramour, Lawaun.2 On one occasion, Lawaun

punched and strangled the mother while she was holding then two-month-old A.B.,

causing bruising to A.B.’s abdomen and injuries to the mother. Both A.B.-M. and

the mother’s oldest daughter were in the home at the time; the oldest daughter

witnessed the incident.3

Afterward, while she was at the hospital, the mother stated that “she was

tired of covering up for Lawaun because he had been abusive to her in the past.”

Lawaun was charged with felony domestic abuse assault and child endangerment,

1 We review termination proceedings de novo. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313
(Iowa 2022). Our paramount concern is the children’s best interests. Id. The State
bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the requirements
for termination have been satisfied. Id. We are not bound by the juvenile court’s
fact findings; but we give them weight, especially in assessing witness credibility.
In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016).
2 Lawaun was initially believed to be the father of A.B. and A.B.-M. DNA testing

later revealed that he is not the father of either child. Notice was given to unknown
fathers, but none came forward. Thus, only the mother is a party to this appeal.
3 The oldest daughter is not a subject of this appeal.
3

and the district court issued a criminal no-contact order (NCO). Two days later, a

child protective worker met with the mother at the home to develop a safety plan

to keep Lawaun away from the children. But shortly after the mother signed the

safety plan, the worker saw Lawaun enter the home. When the worker returned,

the mother told her Lawaun wasn’t there. The oldest daughter, however, told the

worker that “Lawaun had just run out the back door.”

Because of the department’s concerns that the mother was unwilling or

unable to follow the safety plan and NCO, the children were removed and placed

out of the home by ex parte order at the end of January 2023. The court

adjudicated them as children in need of assistance (CINA) in March 2023.

Meanwhile, Lawaun was arrested for committing domestic abuse assault

against the mother again by the end of that year. The couple maintained an “off

and on” relationship when Lawaun was out of jail, and the mother sought to dismiss

the NCOs against him. While Lawaun was incarcerated, the mother was evicted

from the home that they had shared. Despite her efforts, she has been unable to

obtain her own housing since then; she currently lives with friends. She has been

working part-time for the last several months and saving money. She expressed

that if the children were returned to her, she would move into a motel with them.

The department has offered the mother weekly supervised visits with the

children. Initially, Lawaun also attended the visits.4 Social workers reported that

the mother almost always attended her visits when Lawaun was there. She

attended only half her weekly visits from late 2023 through early 2024, while

4 The department discontinued Lawaun’s visits after it determined that he was not

the father of either child.
4

Lawaun was in jail. But by April 2024, “she was showing up for visits consistently.”

According to the workers, there have been “a couple stumbling blocks” during the

visits “with what needed to be fed to [the children] because of their allergies and

stuff, but she finally got that.” Otherwise, her parenting skills have been “pretty

good,” and “she loves on” the children when she sees them. One of the workers

testified that the children also love their mother.

A.B. and A.B.-M. have been living in the same foster home together since

June 2023. The guardian ad litem (GAL) for the children reported that both children

“appeared bonded with [their] foster family” when she visited them. A social worker

also testified that the children “are doing well there and the foster parents are

wanting to adopt.”

Neither child has any behavioral problems. The younger child, A.B.,

receives physical therapy a few times per week to help her muscle development.

She has “improved in her therapy” and is walking. The older child, A.B.-M., has

had several seizures requiring hospitalization. She was recently diagnosed with

epilepsy and put on medication after seeing a specialist at the University of Iowa

Hospital. In addition, she sees a speech therapist three to four days per week.

In April 2024, the State petitioned for termination of parental rights. At the

termination hearing in June, the court heard testimony from two department

workers and a Families First services worker involved with the case. the mother

attended the hearing but did not testify. In closing arguments, the mother’s

attorney told the court:

My client has worked very hard through this to overcome a lot
of barriers, to overcome a lot of negatives in her life. She has not
had contact with Lawaun . . . for at least several months. She is
5

working on housing, but that is a barrier, and when she asked about
going to a motel . . . she was advised not to do that. I think that that
remains an option . . . . She would like to have her children returned
to her. She feels that she is ready to have them returned to her. She
has no intention of returning to a relationship with Lawaun.
She . . . does continue to be employed by Subway. So we’re just
asking that the court deny the petition for termination.

The GAL recognized that the mother “has worked hard” and that “[t]here

was obviously a bond between her and her children, and there still is.” However,

she also expressed concerns about the mother’s progress:

She has not fully complied with all the services, . . . we never
got any psych eval done on her, I was not sure if there was anything
additional based on that that could have helped her with addressing
the issues. She picked her relationship over her children, which was
something she was told at the very first hearing that she needs
to . . . decide what she needs to do towards reunification with her
children. . . .
There was still, as a victim, services she needed to address
and could have helped her to understand the impact of domestic
violence or other work back to those kind of relationships.

Ultimately, the GAL recommended terminating the mother’s parental rights,

explaining:

[O]verall, I think because of their young age and to give them
permanency, I agree with the termination, but . . . I don’t know if
giving additional time to mother is going to help getting these children
permanency because these children are pretty young, and she will
still have other constraints besides her financial situation. So we are
at the phase of termination, and she has been given a long time, so
I agree with the recommendation of termination.

After the hearing, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights

based on Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2024) and found that

termination was in the best interests of the children. She appeals.
6

II. Analysis

In her appeal, the mother does not contest the grounds for termination. See

Iowa Code § 232.116(1); In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017)

(noting that when a parent does not dispute those grounds, we need not discuss

that step). She also does not contend that any of the permissive exceptions for

termination apply. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3); In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476

(Iowa 2018) (holding that “the parent resisting termination bears the burden to

establish an exception to termination”). Instead, she argues that terminating her

rights was not in the children’s best interests. So, we follow the framework in Iowa

Code section 232.116(2), giving primary consideration to the children’s safety, to

the best placement for furthering their long-term nurturing and growth, and to their

physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs.

In arguing best interests, the mother contends that she can provide the

children with a safe and stable home, although “[s]he acknowledges that she is

having problems obtaining housing.” She also urges that she has a strong bond

with her children and has maintained a meaningful relationship with them by

interacting “thoughtfully, fully and appropriately” during their visits. And she states

that she “has separated from the aggressor of the domestic abuse.”

In its response, the State contests error preservation, asserting that the

mother did not argue that termination was contrary to the children’s best interests.

We disagree, finding that she preserved error by asking the juvenile court to deny

the petition for termination. And we have held that the juvenile court must decide

whether termination is in the children’s best interests “regardless of whether the

parent contests the issue.” In re C.H.-B., No. 18-1246, 2018 WL 4627709, at *2,
7

n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2018). The State also points out that the statutory

best-interests framework does not include consideration of the parent-child bond.

See, e.g., In re A.B., No. 23-0235, 2023 WL 3335422, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 10,

2023). True, consideration of a “close relationship between the parent and children

is more appropriate under step three of the analysis, when the court considers

permissive factors [under section 232.116(3)] that may preclude termination.” Id.

at *2, n.4. But a strong attachment to their parent may help identify the placement

best suited to meeting the children’s emotional needs under section 232.116(2).

On the merits, the State emphasizes its concerns about “the pattern of

domestic violence” between the mother and Lawaun and her failure to participate

in domestic violence counseling. The mother’s “history of going back to [Lawaun]

does not bode well for providing the stability and safety that the children need and

deserve,” according to the State.

In assessing the best interests of the children, we must consider what the

future likely holds for them if returned to their mother. “We gain insight into the

child[ren]’s prospects by reviewing evidence of the parent’s past performance—for

it may be indicative of the parent’s future capabilities.” In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398,

400 (Iowa 1994), holding modified by In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

Like the State and the juvenile court, we find the mother’s record of returning to

her relationship with Lawaun and her lack of participation in domestic violence

counseling, individual mental-health appointments, and other offered services

raise concerns for the children’s future stability and safety in her care.

We must also consider the children’s physical, mental, and emotional

conditions and needs. Both children, particularly A.B.-M., have special medical
8

needs. The mother has not participated in A.B.-M.’s appointments for her epilepsy

diagnosis or A.B.’s physical therapy appointments.5 She has not requested any

training on how to care for the children’s medical needs or contacted their doctors

to discuss their conditions. She has also not consistently followed through with

scheduling medical and dental appointments for the children. In its best-interests

analysis, the juvenile court found that the mother “has not achieved personal

stability to address [A.B.-M.]’s therapeutic and medical needs.”

Moreover, we consider the integration of the children into their foster family,

“whether the foster family is able and willing to permanently integrate the child[ren]

into the foster family,” and the “length of time the child[ren] [have] lived in a stable,

satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining that environment and

continuity for the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b)(1). The children have

now been living together with their foster family for over a year—a significant

portion of their lives. They are bonded with their foster siblings and their foster

parents, whom they call “Mom and Dad.” Their foster parents are willing and able

to adopt both children and have cared for their special medical needs without

issue. And according to the GAL, the children have “appeared happy and healthy”

in their care.

We don’t doubt that the children share a loving bond with the mother. But

on this record, we agree with the juvenile court that termination of her parental

rights is the children’s “best chance at long-term stability, growth, and healthy

5 We note that this is partly due to the locations of the appointments and the

mother’s transportation difficulties. She has attended the children’s medical
appointments in her hometown when she had transportation.
9

development.” And potential adoption by their foster parents “is the best

placement option to meet their physical, medical, mental, and emotional”

conditions and needs. So, we affirm the termination order.

AFFIRMED.