In the Interest of S.M., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1326
Filed October 2, 2024

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

S.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Hunter W. Thorpe,

Judge.

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

Nathan Hostetter of Hostetter Law Office, Ames, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Shannon M. Leighty of Public Defender’s Office, Nevada, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, asserting that the

district court should have applied a permissive exception to preclude termination

because of the mother’s close bond with her child. Upon our de novo review, we

affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

S.M. is a one-year-old female, born in January 2023. Her umbilical cord

was positive for methamphetamine. Her mother admitted to being a daily

methamphetamine user until she discovered she was pregnant. A safety plan was

established that required the parents to be supervised at all times with S.M. When

the safety plan was violated, the court formally removed S.M. from parental

custody.1 At the time of the initial removal, S.M. was less than one week old.

Following the adjudication of S.M. as a child in need of assistance in April

2023, S.M. was returned to her mother’s custody. A dispositional hearing was held

in May 2023, and the child remained with the mother. But S.M. was removed from

her mother’s custody a second time later that month, primarily because the mother

was allowing contact between the child and the father, who was not participating

in services. S.M. was returned to the mother’s custody on June 6, but removed

for a third time in early October because the mother was uncooperative with family-

centered services, was struggling with mental health, and was hospitalized for

suicidal ideation. The mother had also been arrested for domestic abuse assault.

1 The father’s parental rights were terminated by the district court, and the decision

was affirmed by this court in July 2024. See In re S.M., No. 24-0811, 2024
WL 3518080 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2024).
3

The mother was granted an extension of time for reunification efforts in

January 2024. The mother made plans to relocate to Mason City for a fresh start

and was engaged in visitation and therapy. But her success was short-lived. Since

the October removal, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine twice,

missed six other drug tests, and produced one negative drug screen. Law

enforcement had contact with the mother, including for violation of a no contact

order with the father. She admitted to methamphetamine use in March. She later

admitted to marijuana use. The court directed the State to petition to terminate the

mother’s parental rights following a permanency review hearing.

S.M. is residing with her paternal grandmother, her third placement outside

parental custody since birth. This placement and other relatives have at various

times in the case expressed an interest in adopting S.M.2

II. Standard of Review

“Our review is de novo.” In re E.C., No. 20-0665, 2020 WL 4201764, at *1

(Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2020); accord In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010)

(concluding “the proper standard of review for all termination decisions should be

de novo”).

III. Analysis

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

parent’s rights. See P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. First, we consider whether there is a

statutory ground for termination of the parent’s rights under Iowa Code

2 The record is unclear as to the current placement’s intentions to adopt S.M. at

the time of the termination hearing, but the placement had expressed willingness
to adopt S.M. at the permanency hearing.
4

section 232.116(1) (2024). 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 that step 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).

The mother’s sole issue on appeal is that the district court should have

applied the permissive exception located in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) to

preclude termination due to her close bond with the child. So we limit our

discussion to this issue.

The district court addressed the requested permissive exception as follows:

Iowa Code section 232.116(3) provides a list of statutory
exceptions to termination. The Mother contends the closeness of the
parent-child relationship precludes termination. These exceptions
are permissive and not mandatory. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3).
Evidence in the record shows the child is close to the Mother. The
most recent Department [of Health and Human Services] report
indicates the child is sad when visitation ends. Here, the love
between the parent and child is clear. However, the core of the
analysis is whether termination would disadvantage the child in such
a way that overcomes the parents’ inability to provide proper care for
a child. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010). The child
has been outside the care or custody of the Mother for nine months
and while the child knows the Mother, the child has spent more time
in the care and custody of other[s] than the Mother. The Mother has
a history of addiction, and her recent past performance indicates a
low probability of success unless a dramatic shift were to occur.
There likely will be some harm to the child due to termination, but it
is the harm that is expected with every termination of parental rights
actions. The disadvantage to termination in this case is nominal in
comparison to the actual harm that would occur due to the Mother’s
inability to provide a safe home for the child. The Mother has not
established that any detriment outweighs the concerns with her
substance abuse and mental health.
5

Upon our careful de novo review of the record, we agree with the district

court’s decision declining to apply this permissive exception. “The statutory

exception found in section 232.116(3)(c) requires proof by clear and convincing

evidence to justify its application.” In re L.V., No. 15-0395, 2015 WL 4936368,

at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015). And for permissive exceptions, the parent

claiming the exception has the burden to prove it should apply. In re A.S., 906

N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018).

As to the bond with the child, the mother’s visitation with S.M. has not been

consistent. Still, the child recognizes her mother, and we have no reason to doubt

the mother’s expression of love for the child. But as noted by the district court, the

mother’s professed love for her daughter is not enough to trigger the application of

this permissive exception. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 709 (noting the consideration

when assessing the exception in section 232.116(3)(c) is not the parent’s love for

the child, but whether the child will be disadvantaged by termination).

We conclude the mother failed meet her burden to demonstrate that

termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to the child, highlighting the

frequency of removal from the mother’s custody since the child’s birth, the length

of the most recent removal, and the mother’s inability to demonstrate sustained

sobriety and address her mental health concerns. We conclude that any

disadvantage of termination does not overcome the safety concerns for S.M. that

would exist in denying termination.
6

IV. Conclusion

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights, determining that

the mother failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that a permissive exception

should be applied to preclude termination.

AFFIRMED.