IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1806

Filed January 24, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF N.C. and E.C.,

Minor Children,

A.D., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, District 

Associate Judge.

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

Patricia Rolfstad, Davenport, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor 

children.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.
2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, born 

in 2013 and 2017.

1 She claims termination is not in the best interests of the 

children and the juvenile court should have established a guardianship in lieu of 

termination.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This family came to the attention of the department of health and human 

services (department) in 2020, due to concerns of methamphetamine use by the 

parents and domestic abuse between them.2 The children were adjudicated in 

need of assistance and placed in the care of the maternal grandparents. When 

concerns were raised about the maternal grandmother’s drug use, the children 

were moved to the care of the paternal grandmother, and later, to the care of a 

maternal aunt. When all these placements posed concerns, the children were 

eventually placed with a “suitable other,” Trisha, the sister of the paternal 

grandfather’s fiancée. The children continue to reside with Trisha.

Over the next few years, concerns persisted relating to domestic violence, 

substance abuse and mental health, parenting, homelessness, criminal activity, 

and the mother allowing the children to be around a registered sex offender. 

Services were offered to address these concerns. The mother tested positive for 

substances, including methamphetamines, on several occasions, and she was a 

no-show or noncompliant with other tests. The mother completed substance1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.

2 Specifically, “the father knocked the mother unconscious while the children were 

present,” and he was “charged in at least five domestic violence incidents.” 
3

abuse evaluations, which recommended outpatient treatment, but “[s]he was not 

consistently attending treatment.” In October 2021, she entered treatment but was 

unsuccessfully discharged six days later.

By spring 2022, the mother appeared to be making progress. She had 

“re-engaged in substance abuse treatment,” “reported talking to a domestic 

violence advocate,” and led the department to believe “she was separating herself 

from the father” (who was not participating in services or visiting the children and 

“continued to be violent”). The court allowed the parents additional time to work 

towards reunification with the children. The permanency hearing was held over 

three days, which allowed the parents “an additional eight months to show their 

commitment to the children.” The mother’s progress stagnated; she continued to 

use drugs, did not appear for drug screens, failed to participate in treatment, and 

did not make consistent contact with the children. The State initiated terminationof-parental-rights proceedings in March 2023.

The termination hearing was continued from July and eventually held in 

October 2023. The mother was present at the hearing, but she did not testify. The 

father was in jail. The caseworker testified the mother had not completed any of 

the initial case plan requirements. Significantly, the mother had not participated in 

domestic-violence therapy, had not complied with drug screens or completed 

substance-abuse treatment, and had no contact with the children since July. The 

mother “concede[d] she struggles with substance use” and asked the court to 

consider establishing a guardianship with Trisha in lieu of termination. The 

caseworker resisted that option, reporting the children were “very aware of what’s 
4

going on,” and they were “angry,” “sad,” and “tired of the back-and-forth.” The 

department and guardian ad litem recommended termination of parental rights.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code 

section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f), and (l) (2023). She appeals.

II. Standard of Review

Appellate review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings is de novo. 

In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Our paramount concern in 

termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re L.T., 924 

N.W.2d 521, 529 (Iowa 2019). We give weight to, but are not bound by, the 

juvenile court’s fact findings. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). 

III. Analysis

In our review, we use a three-step analysis: first, determine if a ground for 

termination exists under section 232.116 paragraph (1); next, apply the bestinterest framework from paragraph (2); and last, consider if any exceptions from 

paragraph (3) apply to preclude termination. Id. at 472–73. 

A. Grounds for Termination. Because the mother does not contest the 

existence of the grounds for termination, we need not discuss this step. See In re 

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

B. Best Interests of the Children. Our statutory best-interests framework 

considers “the child[ren]’s safety, . . . the best placement for furthering the longterm nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and . . . the physical, mental, and 

emotional condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). “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 
5

parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” 

In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted).

The children were adjudicated in need of assistance and removed from the 

parents’ custody over two years ago. Since then, the mother has not consistently 

engaged in services or made any significant progress. In considering whether 

termination is in the children’s best interests, “we look to the parents’ past 

performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of 

providing in the future.” In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). On this 

issue, the court found:

The children have been court ordered out of parental care 

since July of 2021. [E.C.] has spent a good portion of her life outside 

the care of her parents. . . . The parents have been given ample time 

and services to demonstrate their ability to parent these children, yet 

they are still unable to parent these children. The children’s best 

interests are served by termination. The parents have been unable 

to make sufficient progress throughout the life of the case even after 

the court granted additional time to work toward reunification. The 

parents have been unable to address mental health, substance 

abuse, domestic violence and criminal activity issues that have

plagued them during this case and before this case was opened. 

The parents’ inability to progress shows they are unlikely to ever 

become capable of providing a safe and stable home for these 

children.

We agree with the court’s finding that “[f]ailure to terminate parental rights would 

be contrary to the welfare of the children, as the termination of parental rights is 

the only reasonable means to establish permanency for them.” Termination is in 

the best interests of the children.

C. Exceptions and Guardianship. Once the State has proven grounds for 

termination, the burden shifts to the parent to prove a permissive exception under 

section 232.116(3). A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 475–76. The mother claims the 
6

department “failed to show by clear and convincing evidence why a guardianship 

would not be appropriate in this case, as an exception to termination of parental 

rights, given the age of the children and the long-term bond between the girls and 

their mother.”

While the children and the mother do have a bond, to apply the exception 

under paragraph (c) “requires clear and convincing evidence that ‘termination 

would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parentchild relationship.’” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (quoting Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(3)(c)). For the reasons set forth above, the mother has not established 

termination of her rights will be detrimental to the children.

Insofar as we interpret the mother’s argument as a claim permanency 

should have been achieved through a guardianship with Trisha, guardianship is 

not the preferred method of permanency, particularly when children are young. 

See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477 (“[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable 

alternative to termination.” (citation omitted)). On this issue, the guardian ad litem 

opined:

[N.C.] is very matter of fact about staying with Trisha 

permanently if she cannot return to her mother’s care now. . . . [E.C.]

is enthusiastic about being adopted and enlarging her family. She 

has all the new relationships figured out. [E.C.] is completely 

embracing the idea of having more family. Both girls seek Trisha’s 

attention and approval. . . .

The girls have literally aged years while this case has been 

open. They are developmentally in a very different place than when 

I first met them. [N.C.] had a strong bond with her mother, but [the 

mother] has damaged [N.C.]’s trust by being unreliable. Several 

months ago, when [the mother] was making some progress apart 

from [the father], I was willing to consider a guardianship. The 

moment passed and [the mother] showed that even without [the 

father] dragging her down, she doesn’t have the ability to stabilize for 
7

her girls. Even as an absent parent, she hurts them by not showing 

up to visit or calling them.

The girls are together in an adoptive home that can provide 

for them and love them. Trisha is able and willing to raise them, even 

though she has raised a generation of children already. Despite the 

love the girls have for their parents, they clearly have formed a bond 

with Trisha as well. . . .

And as the caseworker put it:

So with guardianship and the chance of that possibly being turned 

over, that doesn’t give them any stability. It says, Okay this is where 

you’re going to stay for a year, but you may still have to go back to 

an unstable environment. You may still have to go back to parents 

who can’t show sobriety, can’t show stability.

We affirm the denial of the mother’s request for a guardianship, and we find

a permissive exception should not be applied to preclude termination.

D. Reasonable Efforts. The mother also challenges the “unreasonable” 

visit schedule set by the department, claiming the department “ask[ed] the parents 

to make an impossible choice” between having visits together despite domesticviolence concerns or not seeing the children. Reasonable efforts “covers both the 

efforts to prevent and eliminate the need for removal.” In re C.B., 611 

N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). “The reasonable efforts concept would broadly 

include a visitation arrangement designed to facilitate reunification while protecting 

the child[ren] from the harm responsible for the removal.” In re L.M., 904 

N.W.2d 835, 839 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). 

The mother may not challenge reasonable efforts for the first time on appeal 

or during the termination hearing, as she did here. See In re E.H., No. 21-0467, 

2021 WL 2709486, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 30, 2021). Rather, the mother was 

required to alert the juvenile court of any perceived deficiency in services “at the 

removal, when the case permanency plan [wa]s entered, or at later review 
8

hearings.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002). Because the mother 

failed to do so, her reasonable-efforts challenge is waived. In re A.S., No. 23-1755, 

2024 WL 111266, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2024).

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

AFFIRMED.