IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-0402

Filed June 16, 2021

IN THE INTEREST OF K.C.,

Minor Child,

B.B., Mother,

Appellant,

J.C., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental 

rights to their child. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Alesha M. Sigmeth Roberts of Sigmeth Roberts Law, PLC, Clarion, for 

appellant mother.

Mallory J. Bartlett of Bartlett Law, PLLC, Waukee, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Doug Cook, Jewell, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Mahan, S.J.*

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

(2021).
2

MAHAN, Senior Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental 

rights to their child, K.C., born in 2017.

1

 Both contend the State failed to prove the 

grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, the court should have granted 

additional time to work toward reunification, termination is not in the child’s best 

interests, and the department of human services failed to make reasonable efforts 

toward reunification. We affirm on both appeals. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This family came to attention of the department of human services in 2016, 

prior to K.C.’s birth, due to concerns about “substance use by both parents.” The 

mother’s older children were removed from her care, and services were initiated. 

K.C. was born in December 2017, and in January 2018, the mother’s older children 

were returned to her care under department supervision. For the next several 

months, the mother was “cooperative with services,” and therefore, the department 

“did not intervene in regards to [K.C.] during that time.” 

In May 2018, the mother’s older children were again removed from her care 

when the department discovered the father, a registered sex offender, was residing 

at the mother’s home and taking care of the children.2 The father had recently 

been arrested and charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. The mother 

“failed to attend drug testing” in June and July, and she admitted using 

methamphetamine “on and off . . . for the past several months.” The mother stated 

 

1 The parental rights of the child’s legal father, the mother’s husband, were also 

terminated.

2 The father is allowed contact with K.C., but not the mother’s two older children, 

who have a different father. 
3

she was “giving up” as to her older children and “moving out of state once her 

rights were terminated.”3 K.C. was removed from the parents’ care and placed in 

relative care.

During visits, the father displayed hostility toward the case providers, 

claiming the department was “out to get them.” He disagreed with having to submit 

to drug tests because “the allegations weren’t against him, but were against [the 

mother].” Even so, the child was returned to the father’s care for a trial home 

placement. Approximately one week later, the father tested positive for 

methamphetamine and the child was removed again. In December 2018, the child 

was adjudicated in need of assistance but was allowed to return to the parents’ 

care for another trial home placement.

By the time of the April 2019 dispositional hearing, the parents were making 

progress toward reunification and the child had “seemingly done well” in their 

department-supervised care. The father had provided negative drug test results, 

but the mother had been “evasive” and unresponsive to requests for drug tests. 

Despite their various substance-abuse and mental-health diagnoses, the parents 

maintained they had “no need” for substance-abuse or mental-health treatment 

services. And the father “continue[d] to argue about testing.” This remained the 

status quo until October 2019, when one of the mother’s rare appearances for a 

drug screen resulted in a positive test for methamphetamine and the father refused 

to submit to a test. The parents also disputed the validity of their prior positive 

tests and demanded the case be closed. K.C. was again removed from their care, 

 

3

In September 2018, the mother consented to termination of her parental rights to 

those children.
4

but the following month, the child was returned to the father’s care under 

department supervision with the requirement that the child not be left unsupervised 

with the mother.

After that, any progress that had been made by the parents seemed to 

unravel. The department caseworker struggled to make contact with them, 

pleaded with them to attend drug tests, and offered options for drug testing to 

accommodate their work schedules and the child’s daycare hours. The 

caseworker was “at a loss of what to do,” noting the “safety plan has been broken, 

the contract of expectations is not being followed, drug testing has not been 

complied with, releases won’t be signed [for dental care for the child], etc.” The 

department also learned the child was being left alone with the mother. In February 

2020, the court entered an order removing the child from the father’s care and 

placing the child in family foster care, where she has remained. 

In a June 2020 review order, the court noted, “The most concerning aspect 

of this case is the parents’ lack of honesty. It is unclear how this case is going to 

progress if the parents do not start being truthful with the providers and the Court.” 

The mother had continued to test positive for methamphetamine but claimed the 

tests were faulty. The father shaved his hair to avoid hair stat tests, and he 

acknowledged a sweat patch would be positive for methamphetamine. By 

December 2020, the parents had effectively “quit testing”; the mother had not 

tested since June, and the father had not tested since August. The State initiated 

termination proceedings.

The termination hearing took place over four days in February 2021. The 

record before the juvenile court indicated the child had been removed since 
5

February 2020, and any visits with the parents had been fully supervised. The 

parents were “no shows” for nearly all drug screens between August 2020 and 

January 2021. The father had not followed through with mental-health or 

substance-abuse treatment, and he tested positive for amphetamines and 

methamphetamine in December 2020. The department caseworker described the 

father as “wanting to argue about anything and everything,” including that he and 

the mother were complying with their contract of expectations, which the 

caseworker reported was “simply not true.” The mother completed a substanceabuse evaluation in December 2020, in which she reported having “not used 

substances since 2016,” and then she “no showed” her follow-up appointment. 

Despite their lack of active engagement in services, the parents requested a sixmonth extension, believing the child could be returned to one or both parents by 

that time.

The guardian ad litem and department caseworker recommended 

termination of parental rights. The guardian ad litem noted that “neither parent has 

been forthcoming with DHS or the court” and “[a]lmost every problem is addressed 

by accusing another involved party of being wrong and blaming faulty tests and 

evaluations.” The guardian ad litem opined the child “cannot be returned today or 

in the immediate future.” The department noted the child was “thriving” and 

“bonded” to her foster family, which was a pre-adoptive placement. 

In March 2021, the court entered its order terminating parental rights 

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020). The mother and father 

separately appeal. 
6

II. Standard of Review

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

In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 2019). Our primary consideration is the best 

interests of the child, In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006), the defining 

elements of which are the child’s safety and need for a permanent home. In re 

H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).

III. Discussion

The parents both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court. They do not contest the child 

is three years of age or younger, has been adjudicated a child in need of 

assistance, and has been removed from the parents’ physical custody for at least 

six of the last twelve months. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(1)–(3). But they

claim the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence the child not be 

returned to either parent at the time of the termination hearing. See id.

§ 232.116(1)(h)(4). Based on the facts detailed above, we have little hesitation 

concurring with the juvenile court’s assessment that the child could not be returned 

to the care of either care at the time of the termination hearing. And we expressly 

disagree with the father’s contention that “[a]ny safety concerns stemmed from [the 

mother’s] substance issues, not [his],” where he repeatedly made excuses for the 

mother’s drug use, allowed her to have unsupervised contact with the child 

contrary to court orders, and failed to take accountability for his own positive drug 

tests.

The parents also challenge the court’s failure to grant them an additional six 

months to work toward reunification. To the contrary, the guardian ad litem gravely 
7

stated, “After listening to the testimony, I am more convinced than ever that [the 

parents] will not be making any changes which would matter” if granted a six-month 

extension. The guardian ad litem elaborated: 

I was hoping the parents would show some indication that 

additional time would help. Instead, they doubled down on the 

arguments they have been making for years. [The mother] admits 

she is dealing with the same issues that have existed since DHS 

became involved with her over 4 years ago. [The father] continues 

to deny any issues exist other than those caused by others who 

wrongfully involved themselves with his child.

Legally, what I need to recommend six more months was a 

reason to believe it would work to reunify the family. . . .

. . . .

The child has been out of the home for over a year. Several 

things need to improve before she can be returned. There is no 

reason to believe that either parent will show any improvement in the 

next six months based on their own testimony.

Similarly, the juvenile court was “unable to find any likelihood that the need 

for removal of the child will no longer exist at the end of an additional six-month 

period,” noting, “[t]he child was removed from the parents’ custody and care over

12 months ago and they are no closer to reunification than they were on the date 

of the removal.” We concur in the court’s finding. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,

41 (Iowa 2010) (“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.”). Under these circumstances, a six-month extension was not 

warranted. Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) was satisfied.

Termination also must serve the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(2). The department caseworker opined “[t]he physical, mental, and 

emotional needs of [the child] cannot be met by her parents, but they have been 
8

met and continue to be met by her foster parents.” The caseworker “noticed a 

significant difference in [K.C.]’s personality, specifically that she is happy and 

seems like a completely different child since being placed with the [foster] family,” 

whereas “[t]he parents are no closer to reunification today than they were when 

[K.C.] was originally removed over a year ago.” The parents are unable to assume 

custody of the child now or at any time in the foreseeable future. There is no 

reason to delay the child the permanency she needs and deserves. For the 

reasons set forth above, we conclude termination is in the child’s best interests, 

and no permissive statutory exception should be applied to preclude termination.

Lastly, the parents contend the department of human services failed to 

make reasonable efforts toward reunification. Our courts have recognized the 

State must show reasonable efforts toward reunification “as a part of its ultimate 

proof” that grounds for termination exist. See, e.g., In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 

493 (Iowa 2000). This issue was raised on the eve of the termination hearing,4

and the department’s report to the court noted, “This worker feels that specifically 

due to the reasonable efforts filing that was filed that the parents are specifically 

trying to manipulate certain situations so that they can have points to argue at the 

termination hearing.” The record supports the caseworker’s hunch. Throughout 

this case, several different caseworkers went to great lengths to provide services 

and opportunities for the parents to make progress toward reunification, but the 

parents fought those efforts at every turn. As the juvenile court noted, the mother’s 

“strategy with dealing with the department has been to ignore it and hope it goes 

 

4 For that reason, we elect to bypass the State’s error-preservation claim and 

proceed to the merits of the parents’ claim.
9

away” and the father “believes [he] is a victim of a vast DHS conspiracy to kidnap 

children from their parents.” The parents could only be successful or participate in 

additional services if they first completed the necessary evaluations and started 

attending treatment. We find the department made reasonable efforts toward 

reunification.

Having addressed the issues raised on the parents’ appeals, we affirm the 

termination of the mother and father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.