In the Interest of J.F., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1381
Filed October 30, 2024

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

M.F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Hunter W. Thorpe,

Judge.

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

her child pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (I) (2024).

AFFIRMED.

Daniela Matasovic of Matasovic Law Firm, Ames, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Shannon Leighty of the Public Defender’s Office, Nevada, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

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

SANDY, Judge.

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

her child pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (I) (2024). She

argues there is insufficient evidence to support the grounds for termination, the

termination is not in the child’s best interest, other permanency options are

available under section 232.104(2), and an exception to termination applies based

on the parent-child bond. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

In September 2023, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) became aware that the mother had tested positive for methamphetamine in

a drug swab conducted during her probation. The mother denied using

methamphetamine and suggested the positive result occurred because she “took

a hit” off a vape which she believed contained THC. Yet she again tested positive

for methamphetamine/amphetamine and THC following a urine test conducted

later that month. She continued to deny methamphetamine use and consequently

refused to engage in substance-use treatment.

The district court granted removal on September 27, 2023, after finding “the

mother has tested positive for meth twice in recent weeks.” The mother later

consented to the removal. The State filed a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)

petition, and the child was adjudicated as a CINA pursuant to Iowa Code

section 232.96A(14) (2023) in October.

The dispositional hearing was held that December, and the mother again

denied substance-use issues. The child remained adjudicated a CINA and in the

custody of HHS for foster care. The mother failed to appear for a drug screening
3

in January 2024, but had a sweat patch applied later in the month. When the sweat

patch was removed, the results came back positive for methamphetamine,

amphetamine, and THC. This was the mother’s third positive test for

methamphetamine and THC. And for a third time she denied having used

methamphetamine, claiming that she “doesn’t trust the sweat tests” and the

positive result was likely because of the “Monster energy drinks she drinks daily.”

A mental health assessment completed in December 2023 resulted in

diagnoses of generalized anxiety disorder, recurrent and severe major depressive

disorder, and chronic PTSD. The mother was encouraged to attend therapy but

felt she did not need therapy and would not benefit from it.

The mother failed to appear for another drug test in March 2024, claiming

she “hit her head.” In April she again tested positive for methamphetamine,

amphetamine, and THC. She continued to deny methamphetamine use. The

mother completed a substance-use evaluation following this positive test, and it

was suggested she attend extended outpatient treatment for substance use. A

treatment appointment was scheduled for May, but she did not attend. She

appeared for a session later in the month but failed to appear for the third session.

She also failed to appear for her June session. The counselor recommended

raising her treatment to residential-level treatment.

In June, the mother reported that she had lost her job at Taco John’s

because of multiple tardies. The social work case manager observed red patches

all over the mother’s skin, which the mother explained was due to high stress and

anxiety. The mother has been encouraged to regularly take the medication she

has been prescribed to help combat these mental health struggles.
4

A permanency hearing was held on June 21, 2024. The court found that

“[t]he Mother has made very little progress” and “has not been able to complete

any type of substance abuse treatment and has outright denied using

methamphetamine despite testing positive for it on three occasions.” Accordingly,

the district court found that a six-month extension would not be proper because it

would not likely resolve the underlying issues that led to adjudication and made

ongoing removal necessary.

The State then petitioned for termination of the mother’s parental rights on

June 28. The hearing on the termination petition was held on August 8, and on

August 20, the district court entered an order terminating the mother’s parental

rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (I) (2024). The

mother now appeals.

II. Standard of Review

We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re D.W.,

791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010).

III. Discussion

We use a three-step analysis to review the termination of parental rights. In

re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). The court must determine: (1) whether

grounds for termination have been established, (2) whether termination is in the

child’s best interests, and (3) whether the court should exercise any of the

permissive exceptions to termination. Id. at 472-73. “However, if a parent does

not challenge a step in our analysis, we need not address it.” In re J.P.,

No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020). The court will
5

also consider any other claims brought by the parent. See In re T.P., No. 19-0162,

2019 WL 3317346, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2019).

A. Grounds for Termination

The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l). We need only to find sufficient evidence on one

of those grounds to affirm. D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.

To terminate parental rights under paragraph (h), the district court must find

that (1) the child is three years of age or younger; (2) the child has been

adjudicated a CINA, (3) the child has been removed from the physical custody of

the child's parents for the required period of time, and (4) there is clear and

convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's

parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time. Iowa Code

§ 232.116(1)(h). “[A]t the present time” means “the time of the termination

hearing.” D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.

There is no dispute here that the first three requirements are met. The child

is under three years of age, was adjudicated a CINA in October 2023, and has

been out of the mother’s custody for at least six of the last twelve months. We

need only find that the child cannot be returned to the mother at the present time.

At the termination hearing, the mother admitted the child could not be returned to

her at the present time:

Q. So in your opinion, what do you need to do before [the
child] could be safely returned to your care? A. I need to go to
treatment and get back from treatment and make sure that the house
looks fine . . . .
Q. Okay. And so since you think that those things need to be
accomplished before he can be returned, fair to say that it would not
be appropriate to return [the child] today? A. Not quite yet.
6

Based on the reports about the mother’s substance use, her failure to address

substance-use or mental-health issues, and her failure to even admit to her

substance use, we agree with the mother’s assessment that the child cannot be

returned to her at this time. Consequently, the statutory grounds for termination

under section 232.116(1)(h) have been met.

B. Best Interest of the Child

The mother contends that termination is not in the child’s best interest and

that the child could be returned to her care in six months. “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.B., 815 N.W.2d 764,

776 (Iowa 2012). When deciding whether termination is in the child’s best interest,

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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).

“It is simply not in the best interests of children to continue to keep them in

temporary foster homes while the natural parents get their lives together.” In re

C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). 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.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014). In order to continue

placement for another six months, Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) requires the

district court to determine the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of

the extension. See In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
7

Accordingly, looking to the parent’s past performance “may indicate the quality of

care the parent is capable of providing in the future.” C.K., 558 N.W.2d at 172.

The mother has demonstrated consistent use of methamphetamine over

the past year. The child was twelve months old at the time of removal and had

been out of the mother’s care for ten and a half months at the time of termination—

nearly half his life. When looking at her past performance, the mother’s substance

use appears to be the most consistent aspect of her lifestyle available in the record.

But the core issue making termination in the child’s best interest is the

mother’s refusal to acknowledge her substance use. We believe

methamphetamine to be a particularly dangerous “scourge” that is “‘imminently

likely’ to result in harmful effects to the physical, mental, or social wellbeing of the

[the child] in the [mother]’s care.” In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 37, 42 (Iowa 2014).

And the mother’s contention that she decided on the day of the termination hearing

to seek help—“her ride to treatment was sitting in the court room; [] her bags were

packed, sitting in front of her door”—is more convenient than it is convincing. “A

parent cannot wait until the eve of termination, after the statutory time periods for

reunification have expired, to begin to express an interest in parenting.” In re C.B.,

611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000).

A finding that termination is not in the child’s best interest would hinge on

our conclusion that the mother will both address and overcome her substance use.

But she cannot do either of those things before she admits she has a problem.

And she has not done so. “[T]he interests in permanency for [the child] must

prevail over [the mother]’s uncertain battle with drugs.” In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338,

341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). Termination is in the child’s best interest, and there is
8

no evidence in the record to suggest that an additional six months will change that

reality.

C. Exceptions to Termination

The mother asserts that the bond between her and the child precludes

termination. “[O]nce the State has proven a ground for termination, the parent

resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception to termination

under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)[].” A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 476. The exceptions

under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) are permissive and not mandatory.

“The court need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child

if the court finds . . . 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). “[O]ur consideration must center on

whether the child will be disadvantaged by termination, and whether the

disadvantage overcomes [the parent’s] inability to provide for [the child’s]

developing needs.” D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 709.

The court appointed special advocates report confirms that the mother and

child love each other. But the child also shares a strong connection with his foster

mother, calls her “mom,” defers to her for his needs and comfort, and recognizes

the foster home as his home. The mother’s love for the child does not outweigh

the danger she presents. And the child’s connection to the foster mother will

ensure that termination does not cause more harm than what can be expected in

any termination case.

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

AFFIRMED.