IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-0498

Filed June 5, 2019

IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.,

Minor Child,

M.R., Father,

Appellant,

A.R.. Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brendan Greiner, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the order terminating their parental 

rights. AFFIRMED.

Jeremy M. Evans of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant father.

Tara M. Elcock of Elcock Law Firm PLC, Indianola, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Yvonne C. Naanep, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor 

child.

Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2

BOWER, Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court decision 

terminating their parental rights. They independently claim the evidence was 

insufficient to support termination, the court should have granted additional time 

for them to resolve their issues, and exceptions to termination apply. We find 

sufficient evidence supports the termination, additional time is not warranted, and 

no exceptions preclude termination. We affirm. 

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

M.R., father, and A.R., mother, are the parents of M.R., born in 2013. On 

December 30, 2017, the parents were arrested for shoplifting; M.R. was with them. 

Law enforcement found drug paraphernalia on both parents, and the parents 

admitted to regularly using heroin and prescription drugs while the child was in the 

home. The child was placed with the maternal grandparents, and on January 2, 

2018, the parents consented to the child’s removal and placement with the 

grandparents. On February 14, the child was adjudicated in need of assistance 

(CINA). After a dispositional hearing in March, the court ordered both parents to 

address their substance-abuse and mental-health issues.

The father, who is thirty-two years of age, has a long history with drugs, 

including marijuana and prescription opioids since he was a teenager; after a sober 

period, in 2012 he began taking pain pills again, progressing to heroin use in 2016. 

He began using methamphetamine in mid-2017. The father attended inpatient 

treatment in February 2018. He started family treatment court in February, but at 

the end of March tested positive for multiple opioids and methamphetamine. At 

the end of April, the father pleaded guilty to a drug offense dating from September 
3

2017, and the court sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. He had no visits with 

the child while incarcerated, but he did call every week to talk with the child. The 

father paroled out of prison in January 2019. After his release from prison, he 

admitted a single use of methamphetamine approximately two weeks prior to the 

termination hearing. 

The mother started taking prescription opioids following a back injury, using 

more over time and turning to heroin in 2016. Following the removal, she started 

family treatment court in February and continued with the court through relapses 

and various treatment programs. In October, she failed to attend her court dates 

and was suspended from the family treatment program. The mother was 

inconsistent in complying with testing and occasionally tested positive for opioids 

or methamphetamine. The mother testified to regularly using methamphetamine 

for the majority of the case. Throughout the case, she started multiple inpatient 

and outpatient treatment programs but did not complete them. The mother was 

inconsistent in attending visitation and would sometimes appear to be under the 

influence of drugs. She did not call the child to talk on days without visits. The 

mother had been in treatment for just over two weeks at the time of the termination 

hearing, with her last admitted drug use earlier in the month.

On December 28, 2018, the State filed a petition to terminate the rights of 

both parents. A trial was held on February 25, 2019. The court heard testimony 

from the mother, the father, the family services worker, the social worker, and the 

maternal grandmother. The parents were both sober the day of the termination 

hearing. On March 13, 2019, the court terminated each parent’s rights pursuant 

to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (l) (2018). Both parents appeal.
4

II. Standard of Review 

We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 815 

N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “There must be clear and convincing evidence of 

the grounds for termination of parental rights.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 

(Iowa 2016). Clear and convincing evidence means there are “no serious or 

substantial doubts as to the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the 

evidence.” In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). The 

paramount concern in termination proceedings is the best interest of the child. In

re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). 

III. Analysis

The parents independently claim insufficient evidence supports the 

termination of their parental rights, the court should have granted them additional 

time to resolve the problems causing the removal, and exceptions apply negating 

the need to terminate their parental rights.

A. Sufficiency of the evidence. Each parent claims insufficient 

evidence supported the termination of their parental rights under both Iowa Code 

section 232.116(1)(f) and (l). Where the juvenile court has terminated a parent’s 

rights on multiple grounds, “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 will address the termination of parental rights for each parent under 

section 232.116(1)(f). Neither parent contests the first three elements: the child is 

over four years of age, has been adjudicated CINA, and has been removed from 

the parents’ physical custody for more than twelve months. Iowa Code 
5

§ 232.116(1)(f)(1)-(3). Each parent claims the State failed to prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the child could not have been returned to his or her 

custody at the time of the termination hearing. See id. § 232.116(1)(f)(4).

At the time of the termination hearing, the father had been sober for less 

than two weeks, having relapsed on methamphetamine shortly after his release 

from prison. While the father had a stable home with his parents, he had not yet 

begun substance-abuse or mental-health treatment. In the year since the removal, 

the father made very little progress in addressing his problems contributing to the 

child being adjudicated CINA. The father was not in a position for the child to be 

returned to his care at the time of the termination hearing.

At the time of the termination hearing, the mother had been sober for a little 

more than two weeks. The majority of her sober period was spent in a controlled 

inpatient environment, and she was moving to outpatient treatment the next day. 

The completion of the first step in her substance-abuse treatment is a good first 

step, but we note she did not choose to pursue treatment until after the termination 

petition had been filed. Over the past year she was in a cycle of starting treatment 

and then relapsing into a regular methamphetamine habit. Even the mother 

testified she was not ready for the child to be returned at the time of trial. 

We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show 

the child could not be safely returned to the care of either parent at the time of trial. 

We determine the juvenile court properly terminated each parent’s rights under 

section 232.116(1)(f).

B. Additional time. The mother claims the court should have granted 

her additional time under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) to resolve her problems 
6

prior to termination. The father also claims the court should have ordered 

additional time to resolve his issues before resorting to termination of his rights. 

In order for the court to order a six-month continuation of the child’s 

placement, it must “enumerate the 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). The court found it 

unlikely the parents could resolve the concerns within six months.

After more than a year of services and uncertainty for the child, each parent 

claims to be in the early stages of addressing the issues that led to the removal of 

the child. The mother claims this time her treatment is different because it is her 

choice to go to treatment. The father claims his time in prison made him 

understand the changes he needs to make in his life and motivated him to stay out 

of jail. We cannot deprive a child of permanency by hoping someday the parents

will learn to be parents and provide a safe and stable home for the child. In re P.L., 

778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). We must “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). 

We cannot find the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of six 

months as to either parent. We conclude the grandparents’ home is the best 

placement to provide stability and for the child’s long-term growth. Termination of 

the parents’ rights is in the best interest of the child.
7

C. Exceptions. Finally, both parents claim the court did not need to 

terminate their parental rights because the child is in the legal custody of the 

maternal grandparents and termination would be detrimental to the child due to 

their close bonds with the child. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a), (c). The court 

found “no clear and convincing evidence presented” showed an exception should 

apply to stop the termination.

The exceptions to termination of parental rights found under section 

232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 45 (Iowa 

2018). It is within the court’s discretion to consider the circumstances of the case 

and the best interest of the child in determining whether to apply the factors. In re 

A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014). We recognize the parents are bonded to 

the child. However, the adoptive family is the maternal grandparents, and they

have indicated the parents may be around the child if they are clean and sober. 

Termination and adoption in this case provides stability to the child while allowing 

the parents a way to maintain their bonds with the child. We find application of the 

exceptions to termination under section 232.116(3) do not render termination 

improper in this case.

AFFIRMED.