In the Interest of E.B., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0936
Filed July 26, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF E.B.,
Minor Child,

R.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka,

Associate Juvenile Judge.

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

MaryBeth A. Fleming of MaryBeth Fleming Law Office, P.C., Dubuque, for

appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Kristy L. Hefel of Public Defender’s Office, Dubuque, attorney and guardian

ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.
2

GREER, Presiding Judge.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to E.B., born in

2022, under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l) (2023).1 The mother

appeals, arguing the grounds for termination were not proved or, alternatively, that

she should get six more months to work toward reunification. Our review is de

novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

The mother, who was twenty-four years old at the time of the May 2023

termination trial, first started using methamphetamine a decade ago. After a

couple of years of use, she remained sober for a period of several years before

relapsing when her mother died in 2020. From then, her use of methamphetamine

persisted, and the mother lost her rights to three children in 2022. See generally

In re M.G., No. 22-0651, 2022 WL 2160684 (Iowa Ct. App. June 15, 2022). She

was pregnant with E.B. at the time.

E.B. was removed from the mother’s custody in September 2022—about

two months after his birth—when the mother tested positive for methamphetamine.

The mother attended visits with E.B. regularly at first, but by December 2022, she

stopped attending in-person visits with the baby. The mother had no contact with

E.B. or the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services from the end of

December until February 2023. At that time, the mother reported she was still

using illegal substances and would be leaving town to begin inpatient treatment for

substance abuse and mental health; a visit was set up, and she attended. But the

1 The father’s parental rights were terminated in an earlier proceeding. He has not
appealed.
3

mother did not go to treatment. And she did not attend more visits. The mother

saw E.B. one more time before moving to Texas on April 1.

At the termination trial on May 18, 2023, the mother reported living with her

stepfather in Texas. She testified she had been sober since moving on April 1 and

claimed to have been steadily employed for two to three weeks. The mother

asserted she had appointments set up to begin outpatient drug treatment and

mental-health treatment; the first appointments were scheduled for May 31 and

June 1, respectively.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights, concluding the

“[m]other basically did not dispute that the elements of the statutory grounds for

termination had been met.” Still, as the court ruled on the specific grounds, we

consider the mother’s challenge on appeal. We need to find only one ground

supported by the record evidence to affirm. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774

(Iowa 2012). We choose to focus on paragraph (h), which allows the court to

terminate a parent’s rights when:

(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.

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). The mother challenges only the final element—

whether E.B. could be returned to her custody. We easily conclude the child could

not. Although the mother had been offered treatment services in the case involving
4

her other children to combat her substance use history, she still had not completed

a substance-abuse evaluation or actively engaged in substance-abuse treatment

during this case. The mother recognized she needed inpatient treatment, but she

never entered any treatment program—either in Iowa or after she moved out of

state in April 2023. And there had been many no shows and a lack of follow

through to engage in mental-health treatment as urged by the department as a part

of the mother’s treatment plan. True, the mother testified she had been sober for

one month and had made progress in other areas, such as her employment status;

but she could only point to last-minute efforts to resolve her substance-abuse

issues, which came too late given the statutory guidelines we must follow. Her

move to Texas served as a barrier to reunification services and to a meaningful

relationship with this young child. No drug tests were taken as the mother indicated

she was using while she was in Iowa, and there was nothing to corroborate her

testimony she was substance free in Texas. Without the ability to monitor her

progress, we cannot say the child could be returned to her custody at the time of

the termination trial. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 473 (Iowa 2018).

Shortly before the termination trial, the mother contacted the department

and requested that they do a home study on her sister who she lived with in Texas,

along with her stepfather. But by the termination trial, the sister had moved from

the stepfather’s home. No home study had been completed—or even started—on

the stepfather’s home. See Iowa Code § 232.158(1)(b), (c) (providing “the purpose

and policy” of the interstate compact is for “the party states to cooperate with each

other in the interstate placement of children” so “[t]he appropriate authorities in a

state where a child is to be placed may have full opportunity to ascertain the
5

circumstances of the proposed placement, thereby promoting full compliance with

applicable requirements for the protection of the child [and] [t]he proper authorities

of the state from which the placement is made may obtain the most complete

information on the basis of which to evaluate a projected placement before it is

made”). And the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children prohibits a child

from being “sent, brought, or caused to be sent or brought into the receiving state

until the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state shall notify the sending

agency, in writing, to the effect that the proposed placement does not appear to be

contrary to the interests of the child.” Id. § 232.158(3)(d). As things stood at the

time of the termination trial, E.B. could not be returned to the mother in Texas. So,

the State proved the ground for termination under section 232.116(1)(h). See In

re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518, 525 (Iowa 2020) (concluding section 232.116(1)(h)(4)

was satisfied when the parent was not in a position to take custody of the child at

issue at the time of trial—even in a case without the characteristic “red flags” in

termination cases).

The mother argues she should get six more months to work toward

reunification. To grant the parent additional time, the court must be able to name

“specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the

basis for the determination 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.” Iowa Code

§ 232.104(2)(b). Like the juvenile court, we are unable to do so. The mother may

have had a few weeks of sobriety under her belt at the time of the termination trial,2

2 The juvenile court did not explicitly rule on the mother’s credibility.
It noted the
mother did not have any test results or other evidence to support her testimony,
6

but she had yet to start substance-abuse or mental-health treatment. Any progress

she made in the weeks leading up to the termination trial was new; there was not

yet evidence she could sustain these positive changes. See In re C.B., 611

N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000) (recognizing recent changes by the parent, in the

face of long-term issues, are insufficient). And while we hope the mother achieves

long-term sobriety, we will not gamble on E.B.’s future by delaying termination

based on hope the mother will make lasting positive changes. See In re D.W., 385

N.W.2d 570, 578 (Iowa 1986).

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

AFFIRMED.

which we understand as an expression of some uncertainty as to reliability of the
mother’s claim.