IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0286

Filed May 3, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF B.P., C.C., and D.C.,

Minor Children,

J.C., Mother,

Appellant,

C.P., Father of B.P. and D.C.,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan F. Flaherty, 

Associate Juvenile Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental 

rights to their children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. 

John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.

David R. Fiester of Law Office of David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for 

appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kristi A. Traynor, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Jeannine L. Roberts, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2

VOGEL, Presiding Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental 

rights to their children.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

B.P., born April 2003; D.C., born September 2008; and C.C., born 

September 2004,

1

came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human 

Services (DHS) in this matter in June 2015, upon allegations of drug use by the 

parents and domestic violence occurring in the home.2 Specifically, the DHS was 

concerned both parents were using methamphetamine and the father was 

committing acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the 

children. On July 2, the DHS removed the children from the home. On July 8, 

the juvenile court approved the removal and directed the mother and the father to 

cooperate with services offered by the DHS. Upon stipulation by the parties, the 

children were adjudicated children in need of assistance under Iowa Code 

section 232.6(6)(c)(2) and (6)(n) (2015). 

In July, both parents tested positive for methamphetamine; the father 

admitted use, as did the mother despite initially denying it. The mother also 

admitted to using methamphetamine twice a week in the months leading up to 

removal and being unsure of how the use affected her ability to care for the

children. The mother did acknowledge that she knew the father was using but 

 

1 The mother is the biological mother of all three children. The father is the biological 

father of B.P. and D.C., referred to in some places in the record as “D.P.” The petition to 

terminate the parental rights of the father of C.C. was dismissed.

2

In 2009, the children were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) and 

removed from the mother’s and father’s care due to concerns about drug use and 

domestic violence. The children were returned to the mother’s care. But the CINA case 

was left open until 2014, when the mother agreed to continue with services and to end 

her relationship with the father. 
3

claimed he was not using in the presence of the children. Following removal, 

multiple incidents of domestic violence between the father and the mother were 

reported to the DHS by third-party witnesses. In August, the mother again ended 

her relationship with the father and reported the father had thrown a safe in the 

home, taken her phone away, and screamed and yelled at her. 

The mother agreed to participate in substance-abuse and mental-health 

treatment, but she did not participate in domestic-violence treatment. In 

November, the mother moved from fully-supervised to semi-supervised visits but 

returned to fully-supervised visits in early December after she tested positive for

methamphetamine. The mother denied using. By March 2016, the mother again 

showed progress and returned to semi-supervised visits until May when she was 

given unsupervised visits. Overnight visits were started in November and 

extended overnights in December.3 However, in late December, the mother 

again tested positive for methamphetamine, and semi-supervised visits were reinstituted. The mother again denied using and blamed the result on a sexual 

encounter with a methamphetamine user. 

Throughout this matter, the mother has been less willing to engage in 

services than in her prior interactions with the DHS. She has been less 

forthcoming about the details of her life and less willing to communicate with the 

DHS. A permanency specialist assigned to the case said that she had seen less 

of a drive from the mother to do the things necessary to secure reunification with 

the children compared to the prior DHS case. When children are in the mother’s 

 

3 At that point, the mother’s progress led to a continuance in the termination action. 
4

care and together, they exhibit behavior changes and become aggressive 

towards one another. 

The father continued to struggle with methamphetamine use and 

acknowledged using on several occasions. He spent time in jail for possession 

of methamphetamine, and his housing and employment situation has been 

unstable throughout the matter. His visits with B.P. and D.C. were sporadic due 

to his situation, and he was unable to care for the children due to his own 

struggles. At the time of the termination hearing, he was incarcerated with a fiveyear sentence imposed. 

On October 11, 2016, after more than one year of offered services in this 

matter, the State filed a petition to terminate the mother’s and the father’s 

parental rights. The matter came on for hearing on January 27, 2017. On 

February 7, the juvenile court ordered both the father’s and the mother’s parental 

rights terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2016). Both the mother 

and the father appeal.

On appeal, the mother claims the State failed to prove by clear and 

convincing evidence the children could not be returned to her care and 

termination is not in the best interest of the children. The father also claims 

termination was not in the children’s best interest and a parental bond exists that 

should preclude termination.4 

 

4

The father does not dispute the children could not be returned to his care at the time of 

termination, but he claims they could be returned to the mother’s. We decline to address that 

claim because the father lacks standing. See In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa Ct. App. 

2007) (holding one parent does not have standing to assert arguments pertaining to the other 

parent). 
5

II. Standard of Review

Our review of termination of parental rights proceedings is de novo. In re 

A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). In reviewing the juvenile court’s ruling, 

we give weigh to its factual findings but are not necessarily bound by them. Id.

III. Statutory Grounds for Termination 

Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) permits termination if: 

f. The court finds that all of 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.

The only ground disputed by the mother is subparagraph (4). 

Based on the record, we agree with the State that significant barriers exist 

that prevent the children from being returned to the mother. Prior to removal, 

and after a prior years-long child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding, the children 

were returned to the care of the mother. Almost immediately, she became reinvolved in an abusive relationship with the father and returned to old habits of 

twice-weekly methamphetamine use, without significant concern for how the 

domestic abuse and drug use affected her ability to care for the children. Since 

removal, the mother has had intermittent periods of progress, leading to 

extended overnight visitation with the children. But less than a month after 

receiving extended overnight visitation, she again tested positive for 

methamphetamine, denied use, and blamed the test result on having a sexual 
6

relationship with a paramour she suspected of methamphetamine use. The court 

did not find her explanation credible. At the termination hearing, the social 

worker assigned to the case stated:

There’s still not any acknowledgment that she used, even after we 

have a positive drug test. . . . I don’t know where the use took 

place. Was it in her home? Was it somewhere else? Her ability to 

discern between what’s appropriate and what’s not appropriate in 

regards to relationships, I think that’s still questionable as well after 

hearing about [the paramour].

In explaining why the case worker favored termination of the mother’s

parental rights, she testified: “Just due to the length that they’ve been out of care 

and their need for permanency I think. I think it’s time that we address that and 

give the boys that permanency that they need.” 

In its written order following the termination hearing, juvenile court 

concluded the mother: 

continues to lack the insight and judgment necessary to safely 

parent her children. There is no reason to believe that [the 

mother’s] insight or decision making will change in the reasonably 

near future. There is clear and convincing evidence to support the 

conclusion that to continue to make efforts to return these children 

to their mother is detrimental to their health, safety, and welfare and 

not likely to result in permanency and stability for the children.

Based on our review of the record, we agree with the district court the State 

proved by clear and convincing evidence the children could not be safely 

returned to the mother under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f)(4). 

IV. Best Interest

In accordance with Iowa Code section 232.116(2), the juvenile court 

considered “whether proceeding with termination is in the best interest of the

child[ren].” The court stated:
7

[The father] and [the mother] have been provided with ample 

time and supportive services to assist them in making the needed 

changes to provide a safe, stable, home for these children, and 

neither has been able to do so. Any additional time comes at the 

expense of the children’s need for permanency.

[B.P., D.C.,] and [C.C.] are adoptable. They each have 

some behavioral and emotional issues which will improve with 

permanent placement and a safe home environment. They are in 

placements currently which can become permanent placements. 

The children’s safety, health, and welfare can best be ensured by 

continued placement according to current dispositional orders until 

permanent placement is made.

We agree it was in the best interest of the children to terminate both the mother’s 

and the father’s parental rights and nothing militated against termination including 

any asserted bond between the children and either parent. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(3). 

V. Conclusion

We agree the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the mother’s 

parental rights to B.P., D.C., and C.C. should be terminated under section 

232.116(1)(f). We also agree with the district court that termination of both the 

father’s and the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. 

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.