IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0125

Filed May 10, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J., C.J., N.J., and N.P.-R.,

Minor Children,

C.P., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District 

Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. 

AFFIRMED.

Michael A. Horn of Horn Law Offices, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Ryan R. Gravett, Clive, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Alexandra Nelissen of Advocate Law PLLC, Clive, attorney for minor child 

C.J.

Erin Romar of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney for minor child C.J.

Heidi Miller of Gribble Boles Stewart & Witosky Law, Des Moines, attorney 

for minor child N.J.

Considered by Bower, C.J., Badding, J., and Carr, S.J.*

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

(2023).
2

CARR, Senior Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. 

We find termination of the mother’s parental rights is supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, termination is in the children’s best interests, none of the 

exceptions to termination should be applied, and the court properly denied the 

mother’s request to place the children in a guardianship. We affirm the juvenile 

court’s decision terminating the mother’s parental rights.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

C.P. is the mother of Ch.J., born in 2010; Ce.J., born in 2011; N.J., born in 

2013; and N.P.-R., born in 2019.1 In an earlier appeal in this case we stated:

This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of 

[Health and] Human Services [(HHS)]

[2]

in March 2021 upon 

concerns regarding the mother’s substance abuse and supervision 

of the children, as well as the cleanliness and safety of the home.

Later that month, the mother presented behavioral indicators of 

substance abuse in the presence of a social worker, but the mother 

explained her behavior was a result of Grave’s disease, a thyroid 

condition, which the worker had no reason to disbelieve. The mother 

had recently refused requests that she and the children be tested for 

drugs. She was also recently found in her vehicle at a convenience 

store, asleep at the wheel, with two of the children in the vehicle with 

her. While law enforcement believed the mother to be impaired, no 

charges were initiated, although the mother was arrested on 

unrelated warrants. The mother agreed to a safety plan involving the 

children staying with the maternal grandmother.

In mid-April, a social worker went to the family home, where 

police were already present in relation to the mother’s dog biting a 

pedestrian. The mother barricaded herself and the youngest child 

inside of the home. The police officers opined the mother was under 

the influence of an unknown substance. The officers called a 

locksmith to facilitate entering the home to arrest the mother, but the 

mother escaped through a side window with the child in tow. The 

mother did not respond to communication attempts from the social 

1 The father of the three oldest children is M.J. The father of the youngest child is 

Z.R. The parental rights of the fathers were terminated. They did not appeal.

2 HHS was formerly known as the Iowa Department of Human Services.
3

worker to safety plan the child into relative care. When the officers 

entered the home, they found marijuana. Based on the foregoing 

and the mother’s refusal to cooperate with [HHS], the State sought 

and obtained an order for temporary removal of all children.

In re C.J., No. 21-1210, 2022 WL 109186, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2022).

After the children’s removal, the mother tested positive for marijuana, and 

the children tested positive for methamphetamine. Id. at *2. The children were 

adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code section 

232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2021). Id. “[T]he mother claimed to be participating in 

substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, but she refused to sign releases in 

order to provide DHS with an ability to verify her participation.” Id. On the mother’s 

appeal, we affirmed the CINA adjudication and removal of the children. Id. at *4.

Following a review hearing in November 2021, the court found the mother 

had a recent sweat patch that was positive for methamphetamine. In addition, the 

mother indicated that she continued to drink alcohol. On the plus side, the court 

noted the mother was in substance-abuse and mental-health treatment. Soon 

after, the mother abruptly left the treatment program.

In January 2022, the State and guardian ad litem (GAL) filed motions 

seeking to suspend visitation for Ch.J. Ch.J. found a methamphetamine pipe in 

the mother’s home and informed social workers. The child was very upset by the 

incident and the mother caused further harm by stating the child was lying about 

the pipe. The court determined Ch.J. could decline to participate in visitation. 

Subsequently, the mother entered a residential substance-abuse treatment 

program. The mother also left this program before completing it.
4

The mother filed a motion for a reasonable efforts hearing. This hearing 

was combined with a permanency hearing. The court found the mother “struggles

to keep her conversations with the children appropriate—and to regulate her own 

emotions during visits.” In addition, the mother continued in a relationship with 

Z.R., the father of the youngest child, who had problems with sobriety and 

domestic violence. The court found HHS had engaged in reasonable efforts. The 

State was directed to file a petition for termination of parental rights.

On July 8, 2022, the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parents’ 

rights. In August the mother tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. 

On the first day of the termination hearing, on September 26, the mother was in a 

substance-abuse treatment program. She stated she was previously untruthful 

with the court about her use of methamphetamine and alcohol. The mother 

testified the children could be placed with her at her treatment program. In the 

alternative, she asked for the children to be placed in a guardianship.

The hearing continued on October 28. A social worker testified that the 

mother became “very verbally distraught” during a Zoom visit with three of the 

children because the fourth child was not present due to illness of the foster parent. 

The children attempted to get the mother to calm down. The social worker testified 

she believed the mother would disrupt permanency if a guardianship were put in 

place for the children. There was evidence that the three oldest children wanted 

to be returned to the mother’s care.

The record was kept open for written arguments and the receipt of some 

exhibits. The mother was discharged from the substance-abuse treatment 

program in mid-November. A sweat patch from soon after her discharge was 
5

positive for methamphetamine. The mother requested a hair test and this was also 

positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. 

The juvenile court entered an order on January 10, 2023, terminating the 

mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) (2022) (as to Ch.J., Ce.J., and 

N.J.) and (h) (as to N.R.). The court found termination of the mother’s parental 

rights was in the children’s best interests, finding “[The mother], despite completion 

of an inpatient treatment program, is still struggling with methamphetamine use.” 

The court found that placing the children in a guardianship would not be in their 

best interests. The court determined none of the exceptions to termination found 

in section 232.116(3) should be applied. The mother appeals.

II. Standard of Review

Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d

764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear

and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear

and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to

the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary

concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa

2014).

III. Termination of Parental Rights

In general, we follow a three-step analysis in reviewing the termination of a

parent’s rights. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). We first consider

whether there is a statutory ground for termination of the parent’s rights under

section 232.116(1). Id. Second, we look to whether termination of the parent’s

rights is in the child’s best interests. Id. (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third,
6

we consider whether any of the exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3)

should be applied. Id.

A. The mother claims there is not sufficient evidence in the record to 

support termination of her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f)3for the three 

oldest children and section 232.116(1)(h)4for the youngest child. We will uphold 

an order terminating parental rights where there is clear and convincing evidence 

of the statutory grounds for termination.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 434 (Iowa 

Ct. App. 2015). 

The mother asserts that the State had not proven the requirements in 

sections 232.116(1)(f)(4) and 232.116(1)(h)(4). She contends the children could 

be returned to her care. Section 232.116(1)(f)(4) and 232.116(1)(h)(4) require a 

3 Section 232.116(1)(f) provides that a parent’s rights may be terminated if 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.

4 Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination of parental rights when the court

finds:

(1) The child is three years of age or younger.

(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 six months of the last twelve months,

or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home

has been less than thirty days.

(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child

cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided

in section 232.102 at the present time.
7

showing by clear and convincing evidence that a child “could not be safely returned 

to the custody of [the child’s] parents.” In re S.O., 967 N.W.2d 198, 206 (Iowa 

2021). Pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f)(4) and 232.116(1)(h)(4), a court 

considers whether a child can be returned to the parent at the time of the 

termination hearing. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021).

The mother continued to struggle with substance abuse. Despite her entry 

into several treatment programs, she tested positive for methamphetamine shortly 

after completing the latest program. We credit the trial court’s careful consideration 

of the tests and its conclusion the positive tests were evidence of use and not 

environmental exposure. Additionally, the mother had problems regulating her 

emotions. The court noted, “[The mother] was so upset [one child] was not 

participating that she became emotionally dysregulated in front of the children. 

The older children had to try to calm her down so they could still have a visit with 

her.” Under these circumstances, the children cannot be returned to her custody 

at the present time. So we conclude there is clear and convincing evidence in the 

record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights.

B. The mother claims termination of her parental rights is not in the 

children’s best interests. She points out that the older children advocated to be 

returned to her care. In considering the best interests of children, we give “primary

consideration to the children’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the longterm nurturing and growth of the children, and to the physical, mental, and 

emotional needs of the children under section 232.116(2).” P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 

40. “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 
8

someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home 

for the child.” Id. at 41.

In addressing the children’s best interests, the juvenile court stated:

And even though termination will be hard on the children, 

there are good reasons to believe it is in their long-term best 

interests. The children are in concurrent plan homes and thriving. 

They are involved in sports and other prosocial activities. The foster 

parents and other caregivers make sure the children see each other. 

All of the caregivers are open to the children maintaining contact with 

the parents if they are healthy and sober. And the court proceedings

have been hard on the children.

We agree with the court’s conclusions. The children need stability and 

permanency, which the mother is not able to provide. While the children are in 

four different placements, the caregivers make sure the children remain in contact. 

The children are doing well in these placements. We determine that termination 

of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

C. The mother states the court could have decided not to terminate her 

parental rights because the two oldest children were over the age of ten5 and 

objected to the termination and there was “clear and convincing evidence that the 

termination would be detrimental to the child[ren] at the time due to the closeness 

of the parent-child relationship.” See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(b), (c). 

The exceptions to termination found “in section 232.116(3) are permissive,

not mandatory.” In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 324 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). 

“The court may exercise its discretion in deciding whether to apply the factors in

section 232.116(3) to save the parent-child relationship based on the unique

5 At the time of the termination hearing, Ch.J. was twelve years old and Ce.J. was 

eleven. Section 232.116(3)(b) would not apply to N.J. and N.P.-R., who were ages 

nine and two, respectively.
9

circumstances of each case and the best interests of the children.” In re A.R., 932

N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). “[O]nce the State has proven a ground for

termination, the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an

exception to termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) . . . .” In re A.S., 906

N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). The child’s best interests remain our first

consideration. Id. at 475.

While the oldest children were opposed to termination of the mother’s 

parental rights, the court found it was in their best interests to terminate the 

mother’s parental rights. The mother’s substance abuse and emotional 

dysregulation creates more uncertainty for the children. The children needed to 

know where they were going to be living in the long-term. They were thriving in 

their current placements. The court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to 

forego termination of the mother’s parental rights based on the exception found in 

section 232.116(3)(b).

The court also considered whether termination of the mother’s parental 

rights would be detrimental to the children based on the closeness of their 

relationship with the mother. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The court found:

[T]he harm that would be caused by maintaining [the mother’s] 

parental rights is substantially greater than the harm termination will 

cause. She is not ready to resume custody of them. If the Court 

declines to terminate, it will subject the children to custodial limbo for 

the rest of their minority.

We determine the court properly decided not to forego termination of the mother’s 

parental rights based on the exception found in section 232.116(3)(c), based on 

the closeness of the parent-child relationship.
10

The mother additionally contends the court should have decided not to 

terminate her parental rights and should have placed the children in a 

guardianship. The juvenile court stated:

The answer is that guardianship would just lead to more battles over 

custody of these children in the next few years. [The mother] has 

sought return of the children at nearly every hearing in the case—

even when she was actively using methamphetamine. And her 

ability to work cooperatively with the guardians is questionable at

best. She is certainly better at coordinating with them as opposed to 

HHS, but once the guardians were required to set limits with her (as 

HHS has to now), it seems likely that would change. The Court’s 

view is that termination and adoption would better allow the current

placements to safely manage contact with the parents. And, finally, 

after a really turbulent child welfare case, the children need to know 

where they are going to grow up. Given that termination and 

adoption are the preferred methods of obtaining permanency for 

children who cannot be returned to a parental home, the Court finds 

termination is in the children’s best interest.

We concur in the juvenile court’s conclusions. “[A] guardianship is not a 

legally preferable alternative to termination.” A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477 (quoting In 

re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017)). Guardianships can be modified 

or terminated. See id. at 477–78 (discussing the practical realities of 

guardianships); In re Z.G., No. 20-1083, 2020 WL 7383528, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. 

Dec. 16, 2020). A guardianship under the circumstances of this case would not 

be in the children’s best interests.

We affirm the juvenile court’s decision terminating the mother’s parental 

rights.

AFFIRMED.