IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0085

Filed March 23, 2016

IN THE INTEREST OF P.S., 

Minor Child,

N.S., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Steven W. Guiter, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old 

daughter. AFFIRMED.

Charles E. Isaacson of Charles Isaacson Law P.C., Des Moines, for 

appellant mother.

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

Attorney General, for appellee.

Marshall W. Orsini of Carr and Wright, P.L.L.C., Des Moines, for minor 

child.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

While admitting she has acted with “manipulation and defiance” toward the 

Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), Nicole nevertheless argues her 

one-year-old daughter, P.S., has not been harmed by her conduct. Nicole claims 

the record lacks sufficient support for the juvenile court’s termination of their 

parent-child relationship under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2015).

Because we find clear and convincing evidence P.S. could not be returned to her 

mother’s care at the present time, we affirm.

This family first came to DHS attention in the summer of 2014 after

narcotics investigators executed a search warrant based on probable cause that 

methamphetamine was being sold from the home. Investigators found drug 

paraphernalia and small plastic bags caked with methamphetamine residue. 

Nicole was pregnant with P.S. at the time of the search, and the DHS removed

her older child, L.S.1 The juvenile court adjudicated L.S. as a child in need of 

assistance (CINA) in August 2014. The DHS implemented a safety plan that 

required the father of P.S. and L.S. to remain out of the home. 

But the father did not follow the safety plan. In March 2015, then fiveyear-old L.S. reported his father had returned home. L.S. told a child protection 

worker he saw his parents hit each other and said the family often stayed at 

hotels because they were “running from DHS.” The worker suspected both 

parents were using methamphetamine while caring for the children. The father 

admitted daily methamphetamine abuse, while Nicole denied knowing about his 

use and denied ever using herself. Nicole failed several times to provide a hair 

 

1 The mother’s parental rights to L.S. are not at issue in this appeal.
3

sample for drug testing. When Nicole did submit to drug testing in June 2015, 

she tested positive for methamphetamine.

The DHS removed P.S. and L.S. from the parents’ care on March 23, 

2015, and placed them both with the same foster family.

2

 On July 15, 2015, the 

juvenile court adjudicated P.S. as a CINA “due to the parents having issues with 

substance abuse, domestic violence, and unstable housing, the child cannot be 

returned to either parent.” The parents were allowed supervised visitation for two 

hours, one time a week. The parents were not employed, did not have 

permanent housing, and did not comply with the DHS recommendations for 

substance abuse and mental health services.

On October 13, 2015, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental 

rights of both the father and mother in regard to P.S. The juvenile court held a 

hearing on December 3, 2015. On December 31, 2015, the court issued an 

order terminating the rights of both parents. The court concluded the parents 

“have failed to acknowledge issues with mental health, substance abuse, 

domestic violence or lack of stable housing. They cannot address issues they do 

not acknowledge exist.” Only Nicole appeals.

We review child welfare proceedings de novo. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 

100, 110 (Iowa 2014). We uphold an order terminating parental rights if the 

record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the statutory grounds. 

In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Evidence is clear and convincing 

 

2 By the time of the termination hearing, P.S. had lived with the foster family for more 

months than she had been in the care of her parents.
4

when there are no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of 

conclusions of law drawn from the evidence. Id.

Nicole raises a single issue on appeal: whether the State proved the 

statutory ground underlying the termination of her parental rights.3 See Iowa 

Code § 232.116(1)(h). Under section 232.116(1)(h), the court may terminate the 

rights of a parent if the child is: (1) three years old or younger, (2) has been 

adjudicated a CINA under section 232.96, (3) has been out of the parent's 

custody for at least six of the last twelve months or the last six consecutive 

months, and (4) there is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be 

returned to the custody of the parent as provided in section 232.102 “at the 

present time.”

 Nicole contends the State presented insufficient evidence P.S. could not 

be immediately returned to her care. She points to evidence she completed a 

required mental health evaluation and was able to provide safe housing. She 

acknowledges the professionals in the case referred to her as “manipulative,

dishonest, and blatantly defiant.” But she contends “her biggest problem was 

that she did not do exactly what was asked of her by the Department, and was 

strong and resilient in expressing her personal belief the CINA case was 

unnecessary.” She also focuses on the father’s behavior—arguing his presence 

was “toxic to her and the children.” 

 

3 The mother mentions the best interests of the child in the issue heading, but advances 

no substantive argument concerning Iowa Code section 232.116(2).
5

After reviewing the entire record anew, we find clear and convincing 

evidence P.S. could not be returned to Nicole’s care at the present time. Two 

safety concerns loom large. 

First, Nicole has not addressed her substance abuse problem despite 

testing positive for methamphetamine in June 2015. She has not undergone a 

substance abuse evaluation or received any treatment. Our supreme court has 

recognized that an unresolved drug addiction can render a parent unfit to raise 

children. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 776 (Iowa 2012). While she did 

complete a mental health evaluation, she only released the information shortly 

before the termination hearing. Nicole contended she did not need mental health 

counseling because she had no abnormal behaviors, but the evaluation indicated 

she had “symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks, crying, insomnia, 

loss of energy, poor appetite, racing thoughts, feelings of guilt, and tension 

through chest.” The mental health evaluator also recommended Nicole receive a 

substance abuse assessment.

Second, Nicole has continued to expose her children to the threat of 

domestic violence. See In re C.C., 538 N.W.2d 664, 667 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) 

(upholding termination where mother’s continuation of an abusive relationship 

potentially exposed the children to danger). During the CINA proceedings, 

Nicole denied instances of domestic violence between her and P.S.’s father. On 

appeal, Nicole contends she has separated herself from “the dangerous father.” 

But the juvenile court did not believe the parents’ testimony they planned to 

divorce. We give weight to that court’s findings regarding witness credibility. 

See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 706. The record supports the juvenile court’s 
6

skepticism. The DHS progress report filed in November 2015 indicated the 

parents were living together and committed to continuing their relationship. In 

addition, at the time of the termination hearing, Nicole was expecting the couple’s 

third child. 

As evidence of her stability, Nicole points out she recently moved into a 

rental house by herself, while her husband lived with his father. Like the juvenile 

court, we have concerns about her ability to maintain this residence given that 

she is unemployed and not looking for work. Before this housing arrangement, 

Nicole and her husband were both staying with her father-in-law.

Finally, we reject Nicole’s argument that her defiance and dishonesty with 

the DHS has not resulted in harm to P.S. In choosing to ignore the DHS 

recommendations and lie to providers about her drug use, domestic violence,

and other issues, Nicole wasted precious time and squandered any opportunity 

to reunite with her daughter. In child welfare cases, we must follow the statutory 

time line for permanency and not force a child to wait for a parent to make 

mature decisions. See In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). 

“The legislature has established time frames to balance the need to provide 

parents with a reasonable opportunity to resume care of their [child] and the 

[child’s] long term best interests.” A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 109. Clear and 

convincing evidence supported the juvenile court’s decision that P.S. could not 

be returned to Nichole’s care at the present time. We affirm the order terminating 

her parental rights to this child.

AFFIRMED.