IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-1188

Filed November 12, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.,

Minor Child,

M.S., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, 

District Associate Judge.

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

Jesse A. Macro of Gaudineer & George L.L.P., West Des Moines, for 

appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Michael R. Sorci of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 

2006. She concedes she “struggled with substance abuse and mental health 

issues throughout the case.” She further concedes she could not parent the child 

at the time of the termination trial. Accordingly, she does not contest the grounds 

for termination cited by the juvenile court. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f) (2015)

(requiring proof of several elements including proof the child cannot be returned 

to a parent’s custody).

The mother focuses on whether termination was in the best interests of 

the child, given his placement with his maternal grandmother. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(3)(a) (allowing court to decline to terminate parental rights where child 

is placed with a relative).

The district court carefully considered this issue, making detailed findings, 

as follows:

The child’s therapist indicated that a complete severance of this 

established relationship would be detrimental to the child. Often 

with a family placement the Court knows contact will likely be 

allowed post termination, especially if the parent can demonstrate 

their appropriateness down the road. Such a scenario allows for 

the child to [live in] a permanent, safe and loving home, while still 

having some assurance the parent is alright and still loves them. In 

this case, however, the relationship between Mother and 

Grandmother is so caustic such a result is unlikely. During the trial, 

the Court has observed Grandmother physically sit with her back 

turned towards Mother in a visual sign of her aversion to Mother 

during her testimony. She has openly balked at the child’s 

therapist[’s] suggestion that [] family therapy would be in the child’s 

best interests, even though it clearly would be beneficial. The 

antagonistic relationship between Mother and Grandmother has 

caused this Court to struggle as to whether termination is in the 

child’s best interests because the Court believes termination will 

result in a complete severance in the child-parent contact and 

ultimately bond, which the child’s therapist has specifically stated 
3

would be detrimental. After carefully balancing the child’s need for 

permanency and stability, the child’s noticeably improved behavior 

since being placed with the grandparents, the significant work 

Mother needs to do to address her mental health and substance 

abuse issues, the child’s age, child’s own acknowledgment that he

is ready to “move on,” and the Mother’s ability to attempt to disrupt 

placement if the court ordered a guardianship, the Court finds 

termination and adoption is the more permanent and appropriate 

permanency option for the child. Therefore, the Court finds 

termination is in the child’s best interests.

On our de novo review, we are persuaded the court’s findings on this issue are 

supported by the record. The mother admitted the child wished to continue going 

to school in the district where his grandparents lived and wished to continue 

living with them over the week. While she also stated the child expressed a 

desire to see her over weekends and over a portion of the summer, she 

acknowledged there would “be some trust” issues she would have “to earn back.”

She also agreed she “just want[ed] him to be happy and safe and secure.”

The child appeared to be moving towards this goal in his grandmother’s 

care. His therapist testified he was “doing very, very well.” She noted “his mood 

over the last several months ha[d] improved greatly” and he “seem[ed] much less 

concerned, worried,” or “preoccupied with adult things and more able to be a kid.” 

While she testified the child would “feel very sad” if visits with his mother were 

curtailed, she also reported the mother’s recent substance abuse would make it 

“very difficult if not impossible for her to focus on [the child’s] needs.”

Notably, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine in her system 

just three weeks before the termination hearing. She used methamphetamine or 

missed or tampered with drug screens thirteen of the fifteen months the case 

was open. The child expressed anger with his mother’s continued drug use and, 
4

in the mother’s own words, “because [she was] really open with [him] about it,” 

she could “just tell that he [was] moving on.” 

On this record, we agree with the district court’s decision to terminate the 

mother’s parental rights rather than deny the termination petition based on the 

relative placement.

AFFIRMED.