IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-2227

Filed April 3, 2019

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.,

Minor Child,

C.M., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District 

Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental 

relationship with her five-year-old daughter. AFFIRMED.

Jessica J. Chandler of Chandler Law Offices, Windsor Heights, for appellant 

mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Michael Sorci of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad 

litem for minor child.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2

TABOR, Judge.

A mother, Cynthia, appeals the termination of her parental relationship with 

her five-year-old daughter A.M. At the October 2018 termination hearing, Cynthia 

acknowledged she had not fully addressed her methamphetamine use, her mental 

health issues, her housing instability, her struggles with abusive partners, or her 

criminal entanglements. These forces resulted in Cynthia losing custody of two 

other children in May 2018.1 In October 2018, the State petitioned to terminate 

Cynthia’s parental rights to A.M. under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (g) 

(2018). The juvenile court granted the petition.2 After an independent review of 

the record,3 we agree the State offered ample evidence in support of termination.

When the juvenile court terminates a parent’s rights on more than one

ground, “we need only find termination appropriate under one of these sections to 

affirm.” In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703, 704 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). We focus on 

section 232.116(1)(f). That section requires proof of four elements: (1) the child 

must be at least four years old; (2) the child must have been adjudicated in need 

of assistance; (3) the child must have been removed from the home for at least 

twelve of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months with 

 

1

In addition to those two children and A.M., Cynthia testified she had four other children 

who were not in her care. She placed her oldest child with an adoptive family when she 

was sixteen; another child was in the sole custody of his father; two others were in the 

guardianship of their grandfather. Cynthia told the juvenile court she didn’t want to lose 

A.M. because “[s]he’s all I have left.”

2 The father voluntarily consented to termination of his rights and does not appeal.

3 We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 

219 (Iowa 2016). Although we are not bound by the juvenile court’s fact findings, we give 

them weight, particularly on credibility issues. Id. Evidence must be clear and convincing 

to support the termination. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110–11 (Iowa 2014). Evidence 

is clear and convincing when there are no serious or significant doubts as to the 

correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 

492 (Iowa 2000).
3

any period at home being less than thirty days; and (4) the child cannot be returned 

to the home as provided in section 232.102 at the present time. Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(1)(f).

The first three elements are uncontested. A.M. turned five about one month 

after the termination hearing. The court adjudicated A.M. as a child in need of 

assistance in April 2017 because Cynthia was using methamphetamine while 

caring for A.M. and her siblings. The adjudication order noted a history of Cynthia 

exposing A.M. to domestic violence, unstable housing, mental health issues, as 

well as substance abuse. A.M. was out of her mother’s custody for more than one 

year by the time of the termination hearing.

On the fourth element, Cynthia now claims A.M. could have been returned 

to her care. Although Cynthia was in jail on pending theft charges at the time of 

the termination hearing, she expected to be released in a matter of days or weeks. 

She testified A.M. could be returned to her care in “maybe two or three months.” 

Cynthia told the court she needed to secure a job, “find someplace stable to stay,” 

and return to substance abuse and mental health treatment.

While Cynthia’s goals were laudable, she had too much to accomplish to 

resume care of A.M. at the time of the termination hearing. See In re D.W., 791 

N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (noting the record did not reveal any evidence the 

child could be safely returned home “at the time of the termination hearing”). We 

find termination was proper under paragraph (f).

Without setting out a separate issue, Cynthia mentions in passing that she 

“does not believe it to be in A.M.’s best interest that [her] rights be terminated, and 

believes that a guardianship would be the permanency option best suited for A.M.” 
4

Such casual allusion to her beliefs does not merit review. See State v. Mann, 602 

N.W.2d 785, 788 n.1 (Iowa 1999) (explaining random mention of an issue, without 

elaboration or supporting authority, is insufficient to prompt an appellate court’s 

consideration). But even if Cynthia had squarely presented those issues, they 

would not merit relief. The record shows moving toward permanency was in A.M.’s 

best interests because she was “confused after visits with her mother” and was 

struggling with the uncertainty of the current situation. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(2) (outlining best-interest test). In addition, our supreme court recently 

reiterated that guardianships are not preferred over termination as a legal 

alternative. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476–77 (Iowa 2018).

We find no cause to reverse the juvenile court’s decision.

AFFIRMED.