In the Interest of K.W., S.W., C.W., and L.W., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1884
Filed April 24, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF K.W., S.W., C.W., and L.W.,
Minor Children,

L.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker

Parry, Judge.

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

Molly Vakulskas Joly of Vakulskas Law Firm, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant

mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Erin E. Mayfield, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Elizabeth Stanley of Stanley Law Firm L.L.C., Sioux City, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.* Schumacher, J.,

takes no part.

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

(2024).
2

CARR, Senior Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental rights.

We find the termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence and is in

the children’s best interests. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

L.H. is the mother of L.W, born in 2005; C.W., born in 2006; S.W., born in

2011; and K.W., born in 2013.1 The children’s father is A.W. The most recent

juvenile court proceedings were initiated in May 2016, due to allegations the

parents were using methamphetamine and marijuana while caring for the

children.2 Furthermore, the parents had a history of domestic violence and criminal

activity.

The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance. The children

remained in the care of the mother, subject to supervision by HHS. The mother

was ordered to follow through with recommendations of a substance-use

evaluation and participate in drug testing.

1 L.W. was seventeen years old when the order terminating parental rights was

filed. She attained age eighteen soon after, and before the mother’s timely notice
of appeal. L.W. is no longer subject to juvenile court procedures. See Iowa Code
§ 232.2(5) (2023) (“‘Child’ means a person under eighteen years of age.”). Our
task is to determine if the juvenile court termination order was correct when filed,
upon our de novo review of the record then before the court. We note that
termination of parental rights has consequences beyond juvenile court procedures,
including rights of intestate inheritance. This consideration also leads us to
conclude the appeal as to her is not moot. The appeal as to L.W. is not merely
academic or without practical legal effect. See In re M.T., 625 N.W.2d 702, 704
(Iowa 2021).
2 C.W. was previously adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) in 2006, and

that case was closed in 2007. The family continued to have interaction with the
Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the mother at times
voluntarily participated in services.
3

On December 29, 2016, the State sought to modify the placement of the

children, noting the mother had not complied with the court’s orders. She did not

follow through with a substance-use evaluation or attend treatment. Also, she was

not cooperating with services. The mother voluntarily placed the children with the

maternal grandmother and her husband, the step-grandfather (maternal

grandparents). The court entered an order on February 1, 2017, removing the

children from the mother’s care and placing them in the care of HHS. HHS placed

the children with the maternal grandparents.

The mother entered an in-patient substance-use treatment program. She

made progress with services. K.W. and S.W. were returned to the mother’s care

on a trial home basis in April, and C.W. was returned in June. The children were

removed from the mother’s care in September after she relapsed into using

methamphetamine. The children were again placed with the maternal

grandparents. There was evidence the children had increased behaviors following

visits with the mother; they were often angry, yelling, confrontational, and did not

listen to directives. The children attend therapy. C.W. has been diagnosed with

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

In November 2018, the court placed the children in a guardianship with the

maternal grandparents. The court noted the children, then ages six, seven, twelve,

and thirteen, wanted to continue to live with the maternal grandparents but be able

to see their mother.

The maternal grandmother died in December 2020. The children remained

in the guardianship of the step-grandfather. The mother was not allowed to have

unsupervised contact with the children or reside in the guardian’s home.
4

Additionally, she was not allowed to have contact if she was under the influence of

any illegal substances. The children continued to do very well in the guardian’s

care.

In July 2023, concerns arose about the children’s contact with the mother

and father while they were visiting the paternal grandmother. It was unknown if

the parents were sober. Also, the paternal grandmother and a paternal aunt made

unsupported claims about conditions at the guardian’s home. On investigation,

HHS determined these allegations were untrue.

On August 2, the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parents’

rights. At the termination hearing, the guardian stated he was willing to adopt the

children and provide them a permanent home. The mother testified she made

arrangements to enter a substance-use treatment program. She asked the court

to continue the guardianship. The mother recognized, “I have placed my—my

interests elsewhere and my addiction and codependency, and I’m not trying to

place blame on anything. I’m taking accountability for that.” She also stated she

drank alcohol before the termination hearing. She testified she used

methamphetamine within that month. There was evidence the children asked for

termination of the parents’ rights.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under section

232.116(1)(f).3 The court found the mother was unable or unwilling to stabilize her

lifestyle and “[t]he circumstances leading to the adjudication of the children

continue to exist.” The court determined termination of the mother’s parental rights

3 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He has not appealed.
5

was in the children’s best interests “so that they will have the opportunity to grown

and mature in a safe, healthy, and stimulating environment.” The mother appeals

the termination of her parental rights.

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 children. 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 children’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).
6

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The mother claims the district court should not have terminated her parental

rights under section 232.116(1)(f).4 She does not dispute the first three elements

of section 232.116(1)(f) but asserts the State did not adequately show the children

could not be returned to her. She asserts she could have the children returned to

her care if she entered a shelter for women.

“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

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

The evidence showed the children could not be safely returned to the

mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing. The mother admitted she

drank vodka in the morning before the hearing and had used methamphetamine

4 Section 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.
7

within the month. The guardian testified that a few days earlier the mother entered

the home uninvited at about 4:00 a.m., after she had been drinking alcohol. At the

termination hearing, the mother acknowledged the children could not be returned

to her at that time. She asked to have the guardianship continued and that the

children be returned to her care when she was ready. We find the juvenile court

properly applied section 232.116(1)(f).

IV. Best Interests

The mother contends that it would be in the children’s best interests to

continue the guardianship and maintain her parental rights. 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.

“[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In re

W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 315 (Iowa 2021). Where the statutory grounds for

termination have been met, the legislature “has made a categorical determination

that the needs of a child are promoted by termination of parental rights.” In re

M.W., 458 N.W.2d 847, 850 (Iowa 1990).

We find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best

interests. The mother was given an extraordinarily long period of time to meet the

challenges that caused the CINA adjudication and removal of the children, but has
8

been unable to place herself in a position where she could meet the children’s

needs. The children have asked to be adopted by the guardian and he testified he

was willing to adopt them. We find the children need the closure of the termination

of the mother’s parental rights and the stability offered by adoption by the guardian.

The mother did not argue that any of the exceptions to termination in section

232.116(3) should be applied. We conclude the mother did not raise this issue on

appeal and we do not address it. See In re E.C., No. 19-1955, 2020 WL 1881079,

at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2020).

We affirm the juvenile court decision terminating the mother’s parental

rights.

AFFIRMED.