In the Interest of C.S., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1496
Filed January 10, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.,
Minor Child,

R.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K.

Shepherd, District Associate Judge.

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

Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, for appellant

mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Victoria D. Noel of The Noel Law Firm, P.C., Clinton, attorney and guardian

ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Doyle, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2024).
2

DOYLE, Senior Judge.

A mother1 appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child born in

2021.2 The mother does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination but

suggests termination is not in the child’s best interests and states that the

closeness of the parent-child relationship “argues against termination.”

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

Human Services (HHS) because of the mother using methamphetamine and

heroin while caring for the child. After it was learned that the child was in the state

of Missouri with the mother’s mother, against an agreed safety plan, the child was

removed by court order and placed with his paternal grandmother (the putative

father’s mother) in Iowa. The child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance

(CINA). The mother made no progress throughout the case. She did not address

any of the case plan objectives, including substance-abuse and mental-health

treatment. The State petitioned to terminate parental rights. The mother did not

appear at the hearing.3 The juvenile court found:

The parents did not cooperate with paternity testing, despite being
given multiple opportunities to do so. The parents have not
cooperated with the case plan. [The] caseworker[] testified the
parents were recently living in a barn at [the paternal grandmother’s]
residence, but their current whereabouts are unknown. The mother

1 The mother was referred to as R.S. in the CINA proceedings. She was referred
to as R.H. in the termination petition and order. On the appellate docket, the
mother’s Notice of Appeal, Combined Certificate, and Motion for Transcripts at
State Expense refer to her as R.S. The mother’s Request for Transmission of
Record and her Petition on Appeal refer to her as R.H. The transfer from the
Supreme Court to this court refers to the mother as R.S. To maintain consistency
with what is currently in the appellate filing system, the caption of this opinion refers
to the mother as R.S.
2 The legal father’s and the putative father’s parental rights were also terminated.

Neither appeals.
3 The legal and putative fathers did not attend the hearing either.
3

has had no recent contact with her attorney. The parents are not
supporting the child financially and are not making an effort to bond
with the child or maintain regular contact with the child. The paternal
grandmother has made attempts to assist the mother and the
putative father in complying with the case plan, but the parents are
not willing to engage in services. No evidence was presented that
the parents have a bond with this child.

The court further found that the child had been removed from the care of his

parents for over one year and has thrived in the care of his grandmother, with

whom he has a strong bond. The court also noted the parents failed to participate

in services, to appear for court hearings, and to take any type of role in meeting

the physical, mental, emotional, and financial needs of the child. The juvenile court

found multiple statutory grounds for termination satisfied with respect to the

mother, concluded termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the

child, and declined to apply a permissive exception to termination. The mother’s

parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e),

(h), (i), and 232.117 (2023).

Appellate review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings is de novo.

In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Our paramount concern in

termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d

521, 529 (Iowa 2019). Typically, our review follows a three-step process that

involves determining whether a statutory ground for termination is satisfied,

whether termination is in the child’s best interests, and whether any permissive

exceptions should be applied to preclude termination. A.B., 957 N.W.2d at 294.

But if a parent does not challenge any of the three steps, we need not address the

unchallenged steps on appeal. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).
4

On appeal, the mother does not challenge the statutory grounds for

termination, so we do not address them on appeal. See id.

The mother disagrees with the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination

is in the child’s best interests but does not say why she disagrees. We analyze

the children’s best interests under the framework described in section 232.116.

See In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687, 690-91 (Iowa 2010). That section requires that

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).

The “defining elements” are the child’s safety and “need for a permanent home.”

In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted). The child has

thrived in the care of his paternal grandparents. They have provided the child with

all his physical, emotional, developmental, and educational needs. The child is

strongly bonded to the grandparents and is healthy, happy, and well cared for in

their care. The grandmother is committed to the long-term care of the child and

would like to adopt him. Clear and convincing evidence shows termination of the

mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.

The mother suggests the closeness of the parent-child relationship “argues

against termination.” The closeness of a parent-child bond may serve as a

permissive exception to termination. Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). But it is the

mother’s burden to establish a permissive exception. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467,

475-76 (Iowa 2018). We question whether this issue is preserved as the juvenile

court’s termination order does not make an explicit ruling on whether termination

of the mother’s rights should be precluded because of the strength of the parent-
5

child bond.4 See In re R.P., No. 23-0419, 2023 WL 3612412, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.

May 24, 2023); see also Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).

Still, we note application of this exception “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.’” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021)

(quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). The mother did not appear at the hearing.

The only person who testified at the hearing was the social worker. As to a bond

between the parents and the child, the social worker testified the child “knows who

the parents are, but when he would fall or something would happen, he would

always go to the grandmother or grandfather.” The guardian ad litem reported, “In

the beginning of the case, [the grandmother] reported [the child] seem to recognize

[the parents]. However, as the case has gone on and [the parents] have seen [the

child] less and less, any bond that was present has deteriorated.” “Neither parent

has been able to progress to extended interaction time with [the child] in order to

develop or strengthen a bond.” And finally, “[The child] does not have a bond with

[his parents].” On appeal, the mother offers nothing to contradict this evidence,

nor does she make an argument to support her assertion. She has failed to meet

her burden to establish the permissive parent-child bond exception.

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

AFFIRMED.

4 Naturally there was no ruling on the issue because it was not raised before the

juvenile court by any of the parents.