In the Interest of A.C. and A.C., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0536
Filed June 19, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C. and A.C.,
Minor Children,

C.C., Father,
Appellant,

N.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.

A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Cole J. Mayer of Des Moines Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for

appellant father.

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.

Nancy L. Peitz of Pietz Law Office, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor

child, Al.C.

Shannon L. Wallace of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney for minor

child, Al.C.
2

Ling Harl of Harl Law Office, Ankeny, attorney and guardian ad litem for

minor child, Ar.C.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
3

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights. We

find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of

the mother’s parental rights. We find termination of the father’s parental rights is

in the children’s best interests, application of an exception to termination is

unwarranted, and it would not be in the children’s best interests to grant the father

an extension of time. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s and

father’s parental rights.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

C.C., father, and N.R., mother, are the parents of Al.C., born in 2014, and

Ar.C., born in 2021. On August 29, 2022, Al.C., who was then eight years old,

called 911 to report that her mother was unresponsive. When officers arrived, they

found the father attempting to perform CPR on the mother. The officers believed

the father was under the influence of a substance due to his erratic behavior.

Officers saw heroin and methamphetamine in plain view in the home. Once

resuscitated, the mother indicated that she had used heroin. The parents also had

a history of domestic violence.

The children were removed from parental custody and were initially placed

with a paternal aunt. Concerns arose because there were reports the mother had

unsupervised contact with the children. In December, the children were moved to

foster care.1 A hair test of Ar.C. was positive for cocaine, fentanyl, and THC. The

1 At the time the children were moved from the paternal aunt’s home, workers from

the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) smelled an odor of
marijuana in the home.
4

mother acknowledged using crack cocaine and marijuana after the children’s

removal.

In the meantime, in November, after eluding law enforcement officers, the

father was found to have several baggies of heroin and methamphetamine in his

vehicle. A blood test of the father was positive for cocaine and fentanyl. The father

was charged with eluding, possession of a controlled substance, and operating

while under the influence. The father entered into a plea agreement and was

placed on probation with the condition that he enter an in-patient substance-use

program.

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

February 2023.2 The mother began an extended outpatient treatment program.

The father was also in a substance-use program associated with his probation. On

June 1, the court granted the parents a six-month extension to work on

reunification efforts. The father was arrested at the end of the hearing for probation

violations.

Subsequently, the father tested positive for methamphetamine, and he was

discharged from the treatment facility. A warrant was issued for the father for

probation violations arising from his positive drug tests and leaving treatment. He

was arrested in Illinois and returned to Iowa. The mother tested positive for

cocaine but denied using illegal substances. In August, the mother reported

receiving threats from the father. She obtained a no-contact order. Despite this,

2 There was a delay in the CINA adjudication due to questions about whether Iowa

or Illinois had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act, Iowa Code chapter 598B (2022). Illinois declined jurisdiction of
the case, and the proceedings continued in Iowa.
5

she let the father into the home. There was also a report that the mother was with

the father in Illinois.

The State asked to have the extension of time shortened, and the court

granted this request. On November 17, the State petitioned to terminate the

parents’ rights. At the termination hearing, the court separately spoke to Al.C.,

who stated she wanted to return to her mother’s home. She stated she did not feel

safe around her father. At times Al.C. refused to attend visits with the father. She

also stated that she felt safe in the foster home.

Although the mother previously denied using cocaine in June, at the

termination hearing she admitted using at that time. She stated she used cocaine

with the father while he was on the run from active warrants for his arrest. She

recalled a time when HHS came to the home and the father climbed out a window,

so he was not found there. The mother stated it was her intention to separate from

the father. She did not ask for the return of her children at the time of the hearing

but requested more time to work on reunification efforts.

The father testified that he was in jail and waiting to enter an in-patient

substance-use program. The program was expected to take eight months to

complete. The father asked for an extension of time to have the children returned

to his custody.

The HHS caseworker testified there were still concerns about substance

use and domestic violence in the case. She stated the mother had not been honest

with HHS about her use of illegal drugs or her contact with the father. The father

continued to use illegal drugs. He did not engage in services for a time period
6

because he was on the run due to outstanding warrants. The caseworker also

testified HHS had identified relatives who were hoping to adopt the children.

The district court terminated the parents’ rights under section 232.116(1)(f)

for Al.C. and section 232.116(1)(h) for Ar.C. The court found termination of the

parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests. The court declined to apply any

of the exceptions to termination found in section 232.116(3). And the court found

it would not be in the children’s best interests to grant another six-month extension

of time. The mother and father each appeal the district court’s decision.

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 child. 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. 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 that step and instead limit our review to the specific claims presented.
7

See id. at 40 (recognizing we do not consider a step the parent does not

challenge).

III. Mother

The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the

termination of her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f)3 and (h).4 She claims

the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence to show the children

could not be returned to her custody, which corresponds to section 232.116(1)(f)(4)

and (h)(4). She asserts that she is working on maintaining sobriety and

establishing a life apart from the father.

“We will uphold an order terminating parental rights where there is clear and

convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination.” In re T.S., 868

3Section 232.116(1)(f) provides for termination of parental rights if the following

have occurred:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or
for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present
time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents
as provided in section 232.102.
4Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination under the following circumstances:

(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(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.
8

N.W.2d 425, 434 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). Section 232.116(1)(f)(4) and (h)(4)

requires a showing by clear and convincing evidence that a child “could not be

safely returned to the custody of [the child’s] parents.” In re S.O., 967 N.W.2d 198,

206 (Iowa 2021). Under section 232.116(1)(f)(4) and (h)(4), a court considers

whether a child can be returned to the parent at the time of the termination hearing.

In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021).

At the termination hearing, the mother testified the children could be

returned to her at that time, but she was not requesting they be returned

immediately. The mother asked for an extension of time to allow the children to

transition home. She stated it would not be in the children’s best interests to be

returned at the time of the hearing because “I know I still need time to work on

things.”

We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show the

children could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the

termination hearing. As the mother herself recognized, she was not in a position

to care for the children. The mother still needed to address the issues that led to

the removal of the children—substance use and her relationship with the father.

We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence to support the application of

section 232.116(1)(f) and (h). We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental

rights.

IV. Father

A. The father does not dispute the statutory grounds for termination of

his parental rights. He asserts that termination was not in the children’s best

interests and requests an extension of time for reunification efforts. He points out
9

that he was scheduled to begin in-patient treatment shortly after the termination

hearing. He states that once he completes treatment, he could be a valuable

resource for the long-term nurturing and growth of the children.

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.

The father has a long history of substance use and domestic violence. The

father’s conduct during the CINA proceedings provides little hope that he could

provide stability for the children or be able to meet their needs. The father

continued to use illegal substances. While on probation, he absconded and spent

time on the run while there were active warrants for his arrest. He did not address

the concerns about domestic violence. He violated the order prohibiting him from

having contact with the mother. We conclude termination of the father’s parental

rights is in the children’s best interests.

B. The father claims the court should have applied an exception to

termination. He contends the court could have elected not to terminate based on

section 232.116(3)(a), which applies when “[a] relative has legal custody of the

child.”

The exceptions to termination found “in section 232.116(3) are permissive,

not mandatory.” In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 324 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted).
10

“The court may exercise its discretion in deciding whether to apply the factors in

section 232.116(3) to save the parent-child relationship based on the unique

circumstances of each case and the best interests of the children.” In re A.R., 932

N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). “[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) . . . .” In re A.S., 906

N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). The children’s best interests remain our first

consideration. Id. at 475.

The children were not in the custody of relatives at the time of the

termination hearing; they were in foster care. The HHS worker testified there was

a plan to place the children with relatives who lived out of state, but HHS had not

yet received the necessary paperwork. As HHS retained custody,

section 232.116(3)(a) is not applicable.

C. The father requested a six-month extension to work on reunification

with the children. He notes that he was starting an in-patient treatment program

soon after the termination hearing. He states that once he completes treatment

he can 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)

(quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)). “The judge considering [the extension]
11

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). And to grant an additional six months, the court must

identify “specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes” that provide

a basis for determining “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 S.H.-M.,

No. 23-1706, 2023 WL 8806153, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2023).

On this issue, the district court stated:

The Court has considered granting the parents another six
month extension. The Court determines this is not appropriate.
During the last extension, the father absconded from probation and
was charged with a new crime—domestic abuse assault. The
mother continued in her toxic, domestic violence relationship with the
father and used cocaine. The mother repeatedly lied to all
professionals and the Court re[garding] this use, despite the positive
drug screen for cocaine. It was not until the mother testified at the
termination trial, that she finally said she had used cocaine. The
children need and deserve permanency. Termination is in the
children’s best interest.

We conclude the district court properly denied the father’s request for an

extension of time. The evidence shows it was unlikely the children could be

returned to the father within six months.

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights and the father’s

parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.