In the Interest of N.G., J.W., A.W., A.W., L.W., and C.W., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-2084
Filed April 9, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF N.G., J.W., A.W., A.W., L.W., and C.W.,
Minor Children,

A.W., Mother,
Appellant,

A.W., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Elizabeth Batey,

Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental

rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Elizabeth M. Wayne of Papenheim Law Office, Parkersburg, for appellant

mother.

Ann M. Troge, Charles City, for appellant father.

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

General, for appellee State.

Danielle M. Ellingson of Noah, Smith, Sloter & Ellingson, P.L.C., Charles

City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and

Buller, JJ.
2

BADDING, Judge.

There are six children at issue in this blended family,1 ranging in age from

thirteen years old to eighteen months old. The father of the five youngest children

is best described as indifferent, leaving much of the parenting to the mother. But

because of an intellectual disability, she is overwhelmed by caring for just one of

her children, let alone all six. After close to two years of services, the case

manager for the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services testified, “short

of me moving in with the family, I don’t know what more the Department can do.”

The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2024).2 The mother and father separately appeal,

challenging each of the three steps in our termination analysis. We affirm upon

our de novo review of the record.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

In the past ten years, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services

has conducted nineteen assessments of this family. The most recent was in

January 2023, before the youngest child was born. While investigating that report,

which included an allegation that the father was smoking marijuana while caring

for the children, the department became concerned by the condition of the family’s

home. It was “covered in trash, clothing, and empty food containers,” with portions

of the home impassable and exits blocked. When the father was asked about the

1 A seventh child, the mother’s now fifteen-year-old daughter, was allowed to
remain in her mother’s custody and is not involved in this appeal.
2 The court also terminated the parental rights of the father of the oldest child.

Because that father has not appealed, our references to “the father” throughout
the rest of this opinion means the father of the five other children.
3

substance-use allegation, he admitted that he regularly smoked marijuana in the

garage. The report was founded for failure to provide adequate shelter and

supervision for the children.

The juvenile court adjudicated the children in need of the court’s assistance

in March. Professionals from the department worked with the family to clean the

home, but the parents had difficulty maintaining its condition even with that

assistance. The children remained in the parents’ custody under the department’s

protective supervision until August, when the department received multiple reports

about the children being left unsupervised. One of them was from a neighbor, who

said the parents’ two-year-old child was in the neighbor’s back yard wearing only

a diaper. The department received another report that the seven-year-old child

was found swimming alone in the Cedar River. A week later, three of the children

left the home on their own for more than two hours, and the parents did not know

they were gone. While investigating these reports, the department visited the

home and found it was unsafe, cluttered, and dirty again.

After these reports, the juvenile court removed the children from the parents’

custody. The youngest child was born the next month and allowed to remain with

the parents. By December, the mother was participating in weekly individual

therapy sessions and had started couples’ counseling with the father, who was on

probation for assaulting her the year before. The condition of the home had also

improved. But the father was not participating in any mental-health or substance-

use treatment, even though it was recommended by his evaluations. The case

manager for the department reported that the father “is clearly not making a

concerted effort and further does not believe he has changes to make,” although
4

his drug screens were negative. But because the mother had been “making

positive changes and strides in all areas to have the children returned home,” the

parents began semi-supervised visits. This did not go well.

In mid-January 2024, the oldest of the six children tried to harm himself at

a visit. He was twelve years old at the time. A video taken by one of the other

children showed the father laughing at the child, rather than trying to defuse the

situation. The child, who suffers from several mental-health diagnoses,3 told the

case manager that he did not feel safe at visits unless they were supervised. The

second oldest child, who was eight years old, is diagnosed with autism, selective

mutism, ADHD, and unspecified disruptive impulse-control and conduct disorder.

He can be physically aggressive and often elopes from home. The third oldest

child, a six-year-old boy, also has ADHD and generalized anxiety disorder. After

the semi-supervised visits began, all of the children’s behavior worsened.

Conditions in the home had also deteriorated again.

Despite these discouraging developments, the department began a trial

home placement for the second and third oldest children. The infant was also

allowed to remain in the parents’ custody. But the parents’ interactions with the

oldest child and two of his younger siblings returned to fully supervised. Safety

concerns quickly arose even during those supervised visits. On one visit, the two-

year-old child was playing with a butter knife that he found on the floor, and he put

a rock in a hot toaster. A worker supervising the visit intervened both times. On

3 Those diagnoses include disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, mixed
receptive-expressive language disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD).
5

another visit, the second oldest child found two pocketknives and was running

around with them. At a different visit, the two oldest children found marijuana and

drug paraphernalia in the garage. During these visits, which providers described

as loud and chaotic, the father was “either not paying attention, attending to his

own wants, or reverting to verbal aggression such as yelling.” There were also

times when he pretended to sleep or just ignored requests for him to help parent.

The mother was simply overwhelmed and unable to supervise more than one child

at a time. A parenting evaluation found that although the mother “had an

intellectual disability, her adaptive functioning given her mental health was much

lower.” The evaluation concluded the mother “appeared to need many supports in

order to be able to live outside of a higher level of care, and should not be left

unsupervised with minors or dependents.”

In April, the department ended the trial home placement and removed the

infant from the parents’ custody after their eight-year-old child was found by himself

at a fast-food restaurant about two miles away from his home around 11:00 p.m.

The child had walked there in his pajamas without the parents knowing he had left,

even though he had to walk past their bedroom to get out of the house. It was

unclear whether locks the department had helped the parents install on the back

door were engaged. When the case manager and a child protective worker visited

the home the next day, they saw that it was extremely cluttered and unsanitary

again, with no safe place for the infant to sleep. After the removal, the State

petitioned to have the youngest child adjudicated in need of assistance, which the

court granted in May.
6

The parents made no progress over the summer. The oldest child stopped

attending visits at his therapist’s recommendation. The visits with the other

children had to be supervised by two providers to keep the children safe. The

mother continued to struggle with parenting more than one child, often needing

direction from the providers. Rather than helping the mother, the father “put

parenting, cleaning, cooking, and household management” on her and then

belittled her ability to complete those tasks.

With this lack of progress, the juvenile court directed the State to file a

petition to terminate the parents’ rights. About two weeks before the hearing in

October, the parents were evicted from their home for nonpayment of rent. They

moved to a motel, with “no solid plan” for finding stable housing. The parents had

submitted several housing applications for two-bedroom homes, which would not

be large enough for all the children. Even if they were approved for one, the father

testified that he did not have enough money for a rental deposit. Both parents

were employed, however, and earning enough money to cover their basic needs,

according to the department’s case manager.

In a thorough ruling, the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence

to terminate the parents’ rights to their respective children under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f) and (h). The mother and father each appeal that ruling.

II. Analysis

“Termination proceedings are reviewed de novo.” In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d

311, 313 (Iowa 2022). In our review, we use a three-step analysis that asks

whether (1) a statutory ground for termination is satisfied, (2) the children’s best

interests are served by termination, and (3) a statutory exception applies and
7

should be exercised to preclude termination. Id.; see also Iowa Code

§ 232.116(1)–(3). The mother and father challenge each step in this analysis in

their separate appeals.

A. Statutory Grounds

The parents only contest the common final element of Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f) and (h),4 both of which require clear and convincing evidence

that the children cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents at the

present time. The juvenile court concluded the State met its burden of proof,

finding:

Despite numerous services and supports, [the parents] ha[ve]
repeatedly demonstrated an inability to provide adequate
supervision for their children. This has been evidence[d] repeatedly
throughout the case during supervised interaction[s] which require
multiple professionals in addition to the parents for the children’s
safety to be assured. [The parents] have demonstrated that they
lack the parenting skills necessary to manage the children’s
significant needs. They have demonstrated an inability to provide
the children with adequate shelter, as they have been offered every
service possible to do so but have still refused to maintain the home
in a safe and sanitary condition for young children. . . . [The father]
has never acknowledged how his own mental health impacts his
children, has never acknowledged the inappropriateness of his
engagement with the children, and has never acknowledged the
dangers that the condition of the home posed for young children. He
has repeatedly placed upon [the mother] more responsibility for
maintaining the household, supervising the children, and managing
the children’s needs than she could possibly shoulder given her own
limitations. And [the mother], without [the father’s] assistance, does
not have the functional capacity to provide a reasonable degree of
supervision on her own, nor to provide the children with adequate
shelter.

4 The differences between section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) involve the ages of the

children at issue and the length of the period of removal. See In re M.B.,
No. 19-1884, 2020 WL 569649, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020).
8

We reach the same findings on our de novo review of the record. In doing

so, we do not discount the positives highlighted by the mother’s petition on appeal:

she was employed, participating in mental health and other services, and attending

visits with her children. But the record sadly shows that the mother could not

adequately care for the children even with a great deal of support from the

department. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014) (affirming termination

under section 232.116(1)(h) where “the record indicates that after a year of

services, the parents were still not in a position to care for [their child] without

ongoing [department] involvement”). We recognize “that a parent’s ‘lower mental

functioning alone is not sufficient grounds for termination.’” Id. (citation omitted).

It is, however, a relevant consideration where it affects the children’s well-being,

as it clearly does here. Id. As for the father’s bare-bones argument that “no real

safety issues existed for the children” in the home, report after report from

providers documented those issues. Those reports, along with other evidence in

the record, establish that the children could not be safely returned to their parents’

custody at the time of the hearing despite the department’s reasonable efforts.

B. Best Interests

The parents next challenge whether it is in their children’s best interests to

terminate their parental rights. In considering this question, we “give primary

consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the

long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and

emotional condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The

defining elements of a child’s best interests are safety and need for a permanent

home. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).
9

The juvenile court found that despite the parents’ love for their children and

the extensive services offered by the department,

these children were not provided a safe home and adequate
supervision to keep them safe. Further, these children’s significant
mental health, behavioral, educational, and developmental needs
were not me[]t in their parents’ care. . . . It does not appear the
parents will be able to provide care for these children in the future,
despite being offered all possible assistance.

The record supports these findings, which the parents do not meaningfully dispute

on appeal. Instead, they each argue termination was not in the children’s best

interests because they are not placed together and some of their placements are

not pre-adoptive.

The department tried to place the children together but was unable to find

a home that could take them all and attend to their special needs. The three

youngest children are in the same placement, and the two middle children have

always been placed together. The oldest child was placed with the maternal

grandmother before moving to a foster family. The case manager testified that the

children had all formed healthy bonds with the caregivers in their respective

homes, who intended to maintain the sibling relationships. While we prefer to keep

siblings together, “this preference is not absolute.” In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793,

800 (Iowa 2006). “Our ultimate concern is the best interests of the child.” Id.; see

also Iowa Code § 232.108(1). We agree with the juvenile court that the children’s

interests were best served by terminating their parents’ rights so that permanency

can be established “in homes where their needs will be met and their safety

ensured through proper supervision.” See In re H.H., 528 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa
10

Ct. App. 1995) (finding termination was in the children’s best interests even though

their adoption was not guaranteed).

C. Permissive Exception

Both parents passively mention their bond with the children and cite to Iowa

Code section 232.116(3)(c), which allows the court to avoid termination if there is

“clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the

child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” Assuming

without deciding that the parents’ arguments on this issue are properly before us,5

we agree with the juvenile court that neither parent carried their burden of proof on

this issue. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018) (“[T]he parent

resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception.”). While the

father testified that the children love him and their mother, “love is not enough to

trigger this exception.” In re A.M., No. 20-0480, 2020 WL 4814170, at *4 (Iowa Ct.

App. Aug. 19, 2020). The record shows that the “disadvantages of termination do

not overcome the safety concerns that would come with denying termination.” Id.

5 We do not do the same for the father’s argument that a “guardianship should be

explored with the respective placement parents to allow the parents continued
visitation and an opportunity to rectify the circumstances to the State’s
satisfaction.” Unlike the bond issue, which was briefly discussed at the termination
hearing and rejected by the juvenile court in its ruling, the father never mentioned
a guardianship at the hearing, and the court did not consider it. As a result, “the
issue is not preserved for appellate review.” In re C.P., No. 20-0310, 2020
WL 2488228, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 13, 2020); see also Meier v. Senecaut, 641
N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (stating issues must be raised and decided by the
district court before we will address them on appeal).
11

III. Conclusion

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her six children

and the termination of the father’s parental rights to the five youngest children.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.