In the Interest of N.M., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-2083
Filed March 5, 2025

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

J.M., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, William Price, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Aaron H. Ginkens of Ginkens Law Firm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for

appellant father.

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

General, for appellee State.

Deborah L. Johnson, Altoona, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

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

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, 1

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination,

claiming termination is not in the child’s best interests, and arguing a permissive

exception to termination applies. Upon our review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

N.M. tested positive for THC at birth in May 2023. The Iowa Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated services to address the parents’

substance use. The child was allowed to remain in the parents’ custody under

HHS supervision. But the parents failed to comply with drug testing, and additional

concerns arose about methamphetamine use and drug paraphernalia in their

home. In July, the child tested positive for methamphetamine. The child was

removed from parental custody, adjudicated a child in need of assistance, and

placed in foster care.

The father had a medical marijuana card, but he reported a history of using

other substances, including heroin. The father completed a substance-use

evaluation that did not result in recommended treatment. The parents had a

history of domestic violence but maintained they were no longer in a relationship.

HHS reported “[t]here is no current concern for domestic violence,” but “[i]f a

1 The mother consented to the termination of her parental rights. The mother’s
parental rights to two other children were terminated in July 2024, because of
unresolved substance-use and mental-health concerns.
3

concern arises [HHS] will address it at that time.” The father engaged in services

and began participating in SafeCare.2

By October, the father had progressed to overnight visits with the child. Yet

in November, law enforcement was called to his home for a dispute between the

father and his roommate. Law enforcement discovered the mother and the child

unsupervised.3 The father arrived shortly thereafter, and he alleged the woman

present was his new girlfriend rather than the mother. HHS discussed changing

the father’s visits back to fully supervised based on concerns “regarding his ability

to be protective as he allowed the child’s mother to be around without supervision.”

Before that could happen, the father made “statements of having gun charges and

not being afraid to get more to shoot everyone who is in the way of him and his

daughter,”4 which prompted HHS to require his visits to take place via video-call

temporarily. Even so, in January 2024, the parents were given a three-month

extension to continue to work toward reunification.

Thereafter, the father was inconsistent with his visits with the child. And

although he had been minimally compliant with drug testing up to that point, he

also stopped participating in drug screens. In April, he reported he had recently

used methamphetamine, marijuana,5 and a prescription medication not prescribed

to him. In May, the father reported his drug patch had fallen off, so it could not be

tested. HHS requested that he obtain a new substance-use evaluation. The father

2 The SafeCare program is an 18-week specialized curriculum focused on safety,

health, and parent/child interactions.
3 The mother did not progress beyond fully supervised visits with the child.
4 In 2022, the father was convicted of dominion/control of firearm by a felon.
5 The father had not renewed his medical marijuana card, which expired in

October 2023.
4

was also not attending mental-health services, and HHS requested he complete

another mental-health evaluation. As of mid-June, the father had not signed a

release to allow HHS to confirm whether the evaluations were completed, and if

so, their recommendations. Meanwhile, the father was unsuccessfully discharged

from SafeCare due to inconsistent participation.

The parents continued their volatile off-and-on relationship, and HHS

remained concerned about their propensity to engage in domestic violence with

each other. The father also sent threatening messages to HHS service providers.

In late June, the parents’ former roommates filed no-contact orders against them.

Thereafter, the parents reported they were living in a hotel, but they would not

disclose the location of the hotel.

The State filed a termination-of-parental-rights petition in July. The

termination hearing took place in October. At the time of the hearing, the father

was in jail following his arrest for a domestic assault involving the mother, which

occurred ten days prior. A no-contact order was entered against the father, but

the mother had already inquired about what was required for her to drop the order.

Neither parent had attended any recent drug screens. The mother consented to

termination of her parental rights. Relating to the father, HHS reported:

Currently HHS has no signed release for any of [the father’s]
services. At this point in time the department does not have any
knowledge as to if he is addressing his substance abuse, mental
health, domestic violence, or completing any services due to the lack
of a release to speak with providers to confirm that he is enrolled and
completing services. To [HHS’s] knowledge [the father] is not
addressing his substance abuse concerns.

The father testified, maintaining he did not have a substance-use problem “at this

moment.” He stated he last used marijuana “two or three months ago” and he last
5

used methamphetamine “before the case even started back in 2023,” contrary to

his other admissions. The father stated he was not “properly medicated” for parts

of this case, and with “[m]y mental health issues, if I’m not properly medicated and

I’m not on the right track, it’s not safe for me or anybody really.” The father testified:

“I signed my parental rights over” to three older children “in a prior case” “because

I wasn’t capable mentally, physically, or financially to take care of the child[ren],”

but “this case is different.” He stated he has an “[a]mazing” bond with N.M. and

“will do anything to keep contact with [her], even if it is just visits, whatever it takes.”

HHS and the guardian ad litem recommended termination of the father’s

parental rights. The court entered an order terminating his parental rights pursuant

to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2024). The father appeals.

II. Analysis

We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo, asking

whether (1) a statutory ground for termination is satisfied, (2) the child’s best

interests are served by termination, and (3) a statutory exception applies and

should be exercised to preclude termination. See In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313

(Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3). The father’s appeal touches

on each of these steps.

A. Grounds for Termination

The district court terminated the father’s parental rights on two statutory

grounds, but we may affirm if one ground is supported by the record. In re A.B.,

957 N.W.2d 280, 313 (Iowa 2021). We focus on section 232.116(1)(h), which

entails our review of the father’s claim that he “requested increased visitation with

his child and requested [HHS] to return the child to his custody” and that he has
6

“sufficient income to provide for his child” and “housing that would be suitable for

the child to be returned to.” That said, the relevant inquiry under

subparagraph (h)(4) is whether a child can be safely returned to the parent “at the

present time”—meaning at the time of the termination hearing. See In re A.B., 956

N.W.2d 162, 168–69 (Iowa 2021). At the time of the termination hearing, the father

was in jail. “It is therefore beyond dispute that the [child] could not be safely

returned to [him] at the time of the hearing.” In re K.E., No. 24-1248, 2024

WL 5153930, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2024). Aside from that obvious barrier

to reunification, the father continues to have unaddressed substance-use and

mental-health concerns that affect his ability to safely and soberly care for the child.

We concur with the court’s assessment that the child could not be returned to the

father’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(h) was satisfied.

B. Best Interests

When determining best interests, we give primary weight 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); accord In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 528

(Iowa 2019) (“We look to the child’s long-range as well as immediate interests,

consider what the future holds for the child if returned to the parents, and weigh

the child’s safety and need for a permanent home.” (cleaned up)).

These factors all weigh in favor of termination here. As the HHS caseworker

opined:
7

[N.M.] has been out of the parental home for numerous
months. I mean, she has been out of her home at least 15 months,
and she is only about 17 months old. So she has been out of the
home for a majority of the time. And throughout that time, neither
parent has fully addressed their substance abuse concerns, as well
as mental health on father’s side not being addressed.
There also continues to be ongoing concerns for domestic
violence in the home and a lack of stability for the parents. I do know
that an extension was previously granted for [N.M.] back in January,
but at this point in time, we have not made any progress towards
reunification.

Under this record, clear and convincing evidence shows that termination is in the

child’s best interests.

C. Permissive Exception to Termination

The father asks us to find an exception to termination under

section 232.116(3)(c), claiming “[t]here was sufficient evidence in the record to

show that a close relationship existed between the Father and child and that the

State’s request for termination of the Father’s parental rights should be denied.”

To avoid termination under section 232.116(3)(c), the “law requires clear and

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

due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.’” A.B., 956 N.W.2d at 169

(quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). This exception is “permissive, not

mandatory.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa 2016) (citation omitted).

The caseworker described N.M. as “thriving” in her current placement—

“very comfortable, very well-adapted to the home she has been in, as well as

adapted to being placed back into daycare.” And the caseworker testified although

the father was generally “appropriate” during visits with the child, there were “times

where [the father] has chosen to opt out of interactions due to his erratic behaviors

and him feeling like he was not a safe person to be around [N.M.] at that time.”
8

The district court found the father had not “offered evidence to establish a[n]

exception for termination of [his] parental rights.” We agree. Under these

circumstances, the father has not established termination of his rights will be

detrimental to the child.

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

AFFIRMED.