In the Interest of L.G. and S.S., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0850
Filed July 24, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF L.G. and S.S.,
Minor Children,

M.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Monty Franklin,

Judge.

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

Jeremy M. Evans of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant

mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Marc Elcock, Osceola, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, L.G.,

born in 2017, and S.S., born in 2021.1 She contends the State failed to prove the

grounds for termination relied on by the district court. Upon our review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) in May 2022, upon concerns relating to the mother’s use

of marijuana in the presence of the children; the mother’s boyfriend, T.W., using

and selling methamphetamine in the family’s home; and domestic violence in the

home. The children tested positive for methamphetamine. A safety plan was

entered requiring T.W. to leave the home and have no contact with the children.

But two days later, T.W. was observed at the home, with S.S. present, in violation

of the safety plan. As a result, the children were removed from the mother’s

custody and adjudicated in need of assistance. Initially, the children were placed

together with L.G.’s father. S.S. was later placed with her maternal aunt. Both

children remained in these placements at the time of the termination hearing.

The mother did not engage in services. The court entered a dispositional

order in July, noting in part: “[The mother] will need to participate in mental health

therapy, substance abuse treatment, and provide clean drug screens.”

In January 2023, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine, but she

denied substance use. The mother also continued to have contact with T.W., and

HHS noted the mother’s “long history of being in unsafe and unhealthy

1 S.S.’s father consented to termination of his parental rights; he does not appeal.

L.G.’s father’s parental rights were not terminated.
3

relationships” and her inability to “demonstrate an understanding of safe

relationships.” Indeed, the mother did not report a history of domestic violence,

despite being a protected party of no-contact orders issued against three

paramours during these proceedings.

In April, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the court granted the mother a

six-month extension to “meaningfully engage in the services requested by HHS in

a timely fashion.” The court instructed, “Meaningful engagement means more than

simply attending the appointments but being able to demonstrate that they’ve

developed insight into the issues which led to the children’s removal.” The mother

disregarded the court’s directive. In September, HHS reported the mother still had

“not engaged in individual therapy to address concerns with unsafe relationships

and domestic violence” and she was minimally participating in her supervised visits

with the children. In October, the mother again tested positive for

methamphetamine.

The State initiated termination-of-parental-rights proceedings one month

later. The termination hearing took place in April 2024. By then, the children had

been removed from the mother’s custody for approximately twenty-two months.

During that time, the mother denied substance use but tested positive for

methamphetamine on multiple occasions. The mother recently gave birth to a

baby who tested “negative for all substances.”2 The caseworker testified that

although the mother “would voice that she wanted to be engaged” in services,

“ultimately, she didn’t engage in those services until the end of the case.” And

2 Separate HHS proceedings were initiated relating to that child, who was placed

with the maternal grandmother.
4

because of the mother’s lack of engagement in services, her visitation with the

children remained “professionally supervised.” HHS and the guardian ad litem

opined termination of the mother’s parental rights would be in the best interests of

the children.

The court entered an order terminating the mother’s parental rights pursuant

to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f) (concerning L.G.), and (h) (concerning

S.S.) (2024). The mother appeals.

II. Standard of Review

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

A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Upon review, our primary consideration

is the best interests of the children, In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006),

the defining elements of which are the children’s safety and need for a permanent

home. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).

III. Analysis

The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the

grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court. We may affirm if we find clear

and convincing evidence to support any of the statutory provisions. See In re

A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We focus on Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f) and (h), which require proof of several elements conceded

by the mother and proof the children could not be returned to her custody. See

Iowa Code § 232.116(f)(4), (h)(4). The mother claims the evidence did not

establish the children could not be returned to her custody at the time of the

termination hearing because she was “actively bettering her life through substance
5

abuse treatment, seeking mental health services, and cutting out violent offenders

from her life.”

We commend the mother’s recent engagement in services, but such

engagement comes after nearly two years of the children’s removal. At the

termination hearing, the mother acknowledged it took “some time [for her] to begin

the therapy,” but stated she began participating in services “after the last court date

[in October 2023].”3 She explained she was “working on what we call a new,

healthy environment” and “[i]t has opened [her] eyes of the unhealthy situations

that [she] chose.” The mother maintained she had not used methamphetamine

despite her positive tests,4 but she admitted she “did have a drinking problem.”

The mother stated she had been sober more than six months, but she

acknowledged she had “not been drug tested in the last several months.” When

asked if the children could be returned to her care “today,” she stated, “I have the

confidence but it—it’s not up to me.” According to the mother, “[N]ow I am more

focused on me and my children, and I am willing to keep pushing forward and

making the good progress that I’m making now.”

The guardian ad litem noted “the efforts that Mom has made most recently”

but opined “there is ample evidence to grant the request for the termination.”

3 She agreed her engagement in the case was “far from” the time of the children’s

removal.
4 She testified her positive tests resulted from exposure to people around her using,

but she “was not aware of what they were using.” Relating to the mother’s drug
tests, the guardian ad litem reasoned, “[W]hether or not Mom is using
methamphetamine, Mom placing herself in the company of people who are using
methamphetamine is equally concerning and potentially dangerous to the
children.” We concur with the guardian ad litem’s “concerns with the lack of
honesty throughout the case.”
6

Relating to the mother’s consistency “in complying with services,” the caseworker

testified, “I would say overall she had been really inconsistent, and she really didn’t

start engaging in those services until the end of 2023, beginning of 2024.” In short,

the concerns prompting HHS’s initial involvement with the family remained at the

time of the termination hearing. See In re C.N., No. 19-1861, 2020 WL 567283,

at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020) (“[T]he mother failed to progress toward

reunification over the life of this case. She never progressed to unsupervised visits

or trial home visits. Without this necessary progression, we cannot say the children

could have returned to the mother’s care.”). The caseworker further noted “how

long it would take her to engage in the services needed to even be able to

recommend a return to her.” See In re C.B., No. 24-0073, 2024 WL 1548807, at *2

(Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2024) (“After two years of little to no progress, the mother

entered treatment just before the termination hearing.”). Clear and convincing

evidence exists for termination of the mother’s parental rights. Accordingly, we

affirm.5

AFFIRMED.

5 The mother does not challenge the finding that termination is in the children’s

best interests or ask us to consider exercising a permissive exception to
termination. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016) (noting three steps
of review in termination-of-parental-rights cases). We therefore limit our analysis
to the contested step. See In re R.M., No. 24-0143, 2024 WL 1297678, at *3 (Iowa
Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2024, see also In re J.F., No. 19-1647, 2020 WL 110404, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020) (“[W]hen, as here, the parent’s claims only relate to
one step in our analysis, we only address that step.”).