In the Interest of M.W., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0484
Filed June 18, 2025

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

L.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Scott Strait, Judge.

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

Whitney A. Estwick of Estwick Law, Omaha, Nebraska, for appellant

mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Katie Johnson of Katie Johnson Law, Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian

ad litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and

Doyle, S.J.*

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

(2025).
2

DOYLE, Senior Judge.

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

December 2021. She contests the evidence showing the grounds for termination

and the finding that termination is in the child’s best interests. She also challenges

the reasonable efforts made by the State to return the child to her custody. After

a de novo review of the record, see In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022),

we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

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

Human Services (HHS) in April 2024 after deputies from the Fremont County

Sheriff’s Office investigated a report of squatters living in a home slated for

demolition the next month. The house was boarded shut, but it appeared that

someone kicked a door in to gain entry. The house also contained items that were

not left by the homeowner, including a couch, mattress, and bedding. There were

also items for a young child: a car seat, clothing, diapers, a pop-up fort, a walker,

a rocking horse, teddy bears, dolls, and LEGO® bricks, among other toys.

A deputy detailed the abhorrent condition of the house in a nine-page,

single-spaced narrative, and a video recorded by his body camera reflects the

accuracy of his narrative. The house had no electricity or water, and it was littered

with dirt, garbage, and waste. A five-gallon bucket used as a toilet was filled with

human waste. Animal waste and human waste were also found on the floor and

furnishings. Dead animals were reported in the house. A cardboard box held used

toilet paper and soiled adult diapers. Other items inside the house included:

cigarette butts, an empty package of marijuana, condoms, wire cutters, bottles
3

containing chemicals, used dishes and silverware, and food. These items were

near or mixed in with the children’s items.1 Mold appeared to cover various

surfaces, and a child’s scribbles decorated the walls. The deputy observed, “The

overall conditions of the house were horrific.”

During their investigation, the deputies learned the house was used by two

individuals who had occupied a neighboring home until it burned down. The

mother and child lived with them before the fire. After the house burned down, the

mother and child stayed with another neighbor when the mother wasn’t visiting her

boyfriend in Missouri. The mother denied living in the condemned home and

claimed that none of the toys or other items found inside belonged to the child. But

the neighbor she stayed with told a deputy that the mother went to the condemned

house to “visit” the squatters. At first, the mother admitted entering the condemned

house with the child only one time to “smoke a cigarette.” Later, she told the

deputy, “I’m not going to lie to you, we’ve been over here.”

The deputy expressed concern about the mother’s ability to care for the

child. He observed the child’s physical condition: “Her hands and feet were

covered in black filth, her fingernails, as well as her toenails had black dirt

1 Paragraph 73 of the deputy’s narrative details one example:

To the left of the couch, on the South wall, was a pile of trash that
contained, soiled kid’s diapers, mice droppings, dirty paper plates, a
dirty towel with stains on it. In the pile of trash were also kid’s toys,
a dirty toilet brush, a fork, and other trash items. Next to the pile, on
the filthy floor was a blue sippy cup with a green lid. There was also
a kids walker toy and a green kids food tray on the top of it. Next to
all of this, was a black trash bag that was full of trash.
The deputy believed the house’s condition presented a high risk of “causing a
sickness, or a disease, due to the amount of filth and grime that is present.”
4

underneath, and needed trimmed.” The child also had lice for which she was never

treated.

The mother was arrested for child endangerment, and the HHS placed the

child in foster care. After an investigation, the HHS found the child was at imminent

risk of harm based on the mother’s failure to provide proper supervision. It offered

the mother two hours of supervised visits with the child each week.

In June, the juvenile court adjudicated the child to be in need of assistance

under Iowa Code section 232.96A(7) and (14) (2024). It ordered the mother to

complete a mental health evaluation and follow all recommendations, complete a

psychological evaluation with an IQ component for a parenting assessment

referral, and obtain and maintain safe and stable housing and verifiable income.

But the mother was inconsistent in participating in services and visits. HHS

workers and services providers could not contact the mother, who did not return

their phone calls.

During a visit with the child in August, the mother demonstrated behavior

that suggested she was under the influence of a mind-altering substance. Her

HHS worker asked the mother to complete a drug screen, which the mother

refused. Shortly after this, the mother moved to Missouri and has not had contact

with the child since. She never obtained the evaluations ordered by the juvenile

court or provided evidence of stable housing or employment.

In January 2025, the State petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental

rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) and (h) (2025). After a hearing, the

juvenile court entered an order terminating the mother’s parental rights under both

paragraphs.
5

II. Discussion.

A. Grounds for termination.

The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence showing the grounds

for termination. We may affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights to each

child if the record supports termination on one ground found by the juvenile court.

See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012).

The court may terminate parental rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(b) if “there is clear and convincing evidence that the child has

been abandoned or deserted.” Under chapter 232, a parent abandons a child by

relinquishing or surrendering “the parental rights, duties, or privileges inherent in

the parent-child relationship. Proof of abandonment must include both the

intention to abandon and the acts by which the intention is evidenced.” Iowa Code

§ 232.2(1). A parent deserts a child by relinquishing or surrendering “the parental

rights, duties, or privileges inherent in the parent-child relationship” for more than

six months. Id. § 232.2(15). Unlike abandonment, desertion does not require

proof of intention “but is evidenced by the lack of attempted contact with the child

or by only incidental contact with the child.” Id.

Clear and convincing evidence shows the mother abandoned or deserted

the child as required to terminate her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(b).

After a visit in August 2024, the mother had no contact with the child and made no

effort to have contact. Because more than six months passed between the

mother’s last contact with the child and termination, clear and convincing evidence

shows she deserted the child. In addition, the mother’s lack of participation in

services throughout the CINA proceedings and her failure to complete any of the
6

requirements imposed by the juvenile court is evidence of her intent to surrender

or relinquish the rights, duties, and privileges of the parent-child relationship as

required to show abandonment of the child.

B. The child’s best interests.

The mother next contends that termination is not in the child’s best interests.

We analyze best interests under the framework described in section 232.116(2).

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

Clear and convincing evidence shows that termination is in the child’s best

interests. At the start of the CINA case, the child’s living situation was tenuous at

best, and she was exposed to deplorable conditions that placed her at risk of harm

even from brief exposure. Because of the mother’s lack of involvement during the

proceedings, the circumstances that led to the child’s removal from the mother’s

custody remain unchanged ten months later. But the child’s circumstances

changed considerably while in the care of the foster parents. Due to their

attentiveness to the child’s needs, the child’s physical, mental, and emotional

health have greatly improved. The child is bonded to the foster parents and is

thriving in their care. They are in the position to give the child the permanent and

safe home that the mother has been unable to provide.
7

Children are not equipped with pause buttons. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d

100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (holding that the court must not deprive children permanency

on the hope that someday the parent will be able to provide a stable home); In re

A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 614 (Iowa 1987) (noting that if the plan to reconcile parent

and child fails, “all extended time must be subtracted from an already shortened

life for the children in a better home”). We are unwilling to deny the child

permanency any longer.

C. Reasonable efforts.

Finally, the mother complains that the State failed to make reasonable

efforts to return the child to her custody. See Iowa Code § 232.102(6) (“If the court

orders the transfer of the custody of the child to the department or other agency

for placement, the department or agency shall submit a case permanency plan to

the court and shall make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s

home as quickly as possible consistent with the best interests of the child.”). But

reasonable efforts are not required for termination under section 232.116(1)(b).

See In re M.D., No. 19-1912, 2020 WL 567320, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020)

(collecting cases that hold section 232.116(1)(b) does not have a reasonable-

efforts requirement); cf. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (discussing

the language of section 232.116(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), and (k) that “implicates the

reasonable effort requirement”).

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(b).

AFFIRMED.