In the Interest of W.E. and N.H., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1797
Filed January 24, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF W.E. and N.H.,
Minor Children,

M.V., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,

District Associate Judge.

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

Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant Public Defender, Cedar Rapids, for

appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Julie Gunderson Trachta, Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, attorney

and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. We find termination

of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests and an extension

of time to work on reunification is unwarranted. We affirm the termination of the

mother’s parental rights.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

M.V. is the mother of N.H.,1 born in 2011, and W.E., born in 2020. The

parental rights of R.E., the father of W.E., were terminated in 2021. 2 At the time

of the earlier termination, the mother was separated from the father, but she

reunited with him in February 2022. She stated she believed the father should

have a relationship with the children despite the termination of his parental rights

to W.E.

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) became

involved with the family again in April because of allegations that the father

physically abused the mother in the presence of the children. There was also a

concern the mother was drinking to excess and not caring for the children. N.H.

reported the father struck the mother in the past. The mother had observable

injuries. The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA).

In August, the mother tested positive for amphetamines. On September 27,

N.H. had a mental health crisis at school. He said the father had moved back into

the home, and the father and mother were arguing and fighting. The mother would

1 The father of N.H., R.H., did not participate in services. His parental rights were
terminated in this proceeding. He has not appealed.
2 For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to R.E. as the father, although he is not

the biological father of N.H.
3

not let a social worker enter the home. The children were then removed from the

parents’ custody. A hair test of W.E. was positive for methamphetamine. The

children were placed in the same foster home where they lived during the earlier

CINA case leading to the termination of the father’s parental rights.3

The mother continued her relationship with the father. In November, she

emailed social workers pictures of black eyes given to her by the father. She

obtained a no-contact order. Based on the mother’s progress, she was able to

have semi-supervised visits.

The mother tested positive for methamphetamine in May 2023. Throughout

the case she did not appear for a majority of the requests for drug testing. In June,

the mother met with the father. They had an argument while she was driving. The

mother punched the father in the face and broke his nose. She was charged with

domestic abuse assault and the father was charged with contempt for violating the

no-contact order. The mother’s visits returned to fully supervised.

The State filed petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the

children. A termination hearing was held on October 16. The mother testified she

was living with the father and expecting another child with him. She stated the

father was no longer using illegal drugs and she believed he would not engage in

domestic violence. The mother testified the children were in a better place with

the foster parents than she could provide for them. She asked, however, for more

time to work on reunification.

3 Later, the children were moved to a different foster home. At the time of
termination, the children were placed together in a foster home willing to adopt the
children.
4

The court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f) (2023) for N.H. and (h) for W.E. The court found termination

of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The court did

not apply any of the exceptions to termination found in section 232.116(3). The

court denied the mother’s request for an extension of time. The mother appeals.

II. Standard of Review

Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d

764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear

and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear

and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to

the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary

concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa

2014).

In general, we follow a three-step analysis in reviewing the termination of a

parent’s rights. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). First, we consider

whether there is a statutory ground for termination of the parent’s rights under

section 232.116(1). Id. Second, we look to whether termination of the parent’s

rights is in the child’s best interests. Id. (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third,

we consider whether any of the exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3)

should be applied. Id. But when the parent does not raise a claim relating to any

of the three steps, we do not address them and instead limit our review to the

specific claims presented. See id. at 40 (recognizing we do not consider a step

the parent does not challenge).
5

III. Best Interests

The mother claims termination of her parental rights is not in the children’s

best interests.4 She points to recent positive changes, including sobriety and

involvement in a church. She also asserts that her relationship with R.E. has

improved for the same reasons.

In considering the best interests of a child, 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 needs of the

child under section 232.116(2).” P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41. “It is well-settled law that

we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for

termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be

a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” Id.

On the issue of best interests, the district court stated:

It is in these children’s best interest for termination of parental
rights to occur. They have been out of parental care for over a year
in the current case. They were removed from parental care in [the
case involving the father] for a period of time earlier. It is time that
the revolving door of exposure to domestic violence and substance
use in their mother’s care, and removal by the courts, ends. They
need and deserve a stable, sober, and violence free existence in a
home where their needs are put first. History indicates that they will
not get that from their mother.

Throughout the case the mother pursued her relationship with R.E., which

involved domestic violence, to the detriment of the children. As recently as June

2023, the mother and father had an argument where she struck him and broke his

4 The mother does not dispute that the State presented clear and convincing
evidence to support termination of her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f)
and (h).
6

nose, resulting in a charge of domestic abuse assault. The continued domestic

violence in the home has caused the oldest child to engage in problematic,

aggressive behavior at school.

Nor has the mother addressed her substance-abuse problems. At the time

of removal, the youngest child’s hair tested positive for methamphetamine. The

mother tested positive for amphetamines in August 2022 and methamphetamine

in May 2023. The mother did not participate in requested drug testing during most

of the case. There was no evidence the mother had completed a substance-abuse

treatment program. We conclude that termination of the mother’s parental rights

is in the children’s best interests.

IV. Extension of Time

While the mother testified the children could not be returned to her custody

at the time of the termination hearing, she requested an extension of time to work

on reunification with the children. She claims she has been sober since November

2022 and the father has been sober since he was released from jail in June 2023.

She also asserts there have been no incidents of domestic violence since June

2023. She asks for an additional six months to show she and the father could

safely care for the children.

A six-month extension of time may be granted under sections 232.104(2)(b)

and 232.117(5) if parental rights are not terminated following a termination hearing.

In re D.P., No. 21-0884, 2021 WL 3891722, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2021).

An extension of time may be granted if the court “determin[es] that the need for

removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the

additional six-month period.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)
7

(quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)). “The judge considering [the extension]

should however constantly bear in mind that, if the plan fails, all extended time

must be subtracted from an already shortened life for the children in a better

home.” Id. (citation omitted).

A social worker testified that nothing would change if the mother was given

more time. The worker noted that when the mother is involved with the father, she

does not consider the children’s safety. The court found the mother was not

credible, particularly about her relationship with the father. The mother also has

not been truthful about her use of illegal substances. Here, she argues she has

been sober since November 2022, although she tested positive for

methamphetamine in May 2023.

We conclude an extension of time is unwarranted in this case as it is not

likely the children could be returned to the mother’s custody within six months. See

id. The issues that caused HHS to become involved, domestic violence and

substance abuse, are still present. It is unlikely the mother would be able to resolve

these issues within six months because rather than address them, she has

continued to deny the problems exist.

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

AFFIRMED.