IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-0256

Filed April 8, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF J.O. AND X.O,

Minor Children,

C.O., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Humboldt County, Kurt J. Stoebe, 

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children 

born in 2012 and 2013. AFFIRMED.

Ashley M. Emick of Arends, Lee & Emick, Humboldt, for appellant mother.

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

Attorney General, and Jonathan Beaty, County Attorney, for appellee State.

Marcy Lundberg, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor 

children.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, P.J.

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

born in 2012 and 2013. She contends (1) the record lacks clear and convincing 

evidence to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2013)

and (2) the State did not make reasonable reunification efforts.

I. Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) requires the State to prove the 

children were three years of age or younger, were adjudicated in need of 

assistance, were removed from the physical custody of the mother for at least six 

of the previous twelve months, and could not be returned to the mother’s 

custody. On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that the State 

satisfied its burden of proving these elements.

The mother is the subject of two founded child abuse reports. The first 

arose from her failure to take the younger child to regularly scheduled medical 

appointments for a rare condition known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and 

her apparent failure to have an emergency injection on hand to treat the 

condition. The second abuse report arose from her decision to leave the toddlers 

home alone. 

On the issuance of the first report, the children were allowed to remain 

with the mother. After the filing of the second report, the juvenile court ordered 

the children’s removal from her care and placement in foster care, where they 

remained through the termination hearing.

At the hearing, the mother took issue with the contents of the child abuse 

reports. As to the first incident, she furnished evidence documenting her 

purchase of the emergency medication. However, she did not deny her failure to 
3

schedule three consecutive monthly appointments for the younger child. In light 

of these significant omissions, a Department of Human Services social worker 

expressed concern with the mother’s ability to understand “the severity of [the 

child’s] condition and the long-term effects of his condition.” 

With respect to the second incident, the mother asserted she left the 

children with one of the fathers. Even if true, this father was the subject of a nocontact order based on his physical abuse of the mother while the children were 

in the home. Additionally, according to the department social worker, the second 

report was documented by a service provider who visited the mother’s home and 

found the older child “in the living room, [with] no adult” and the younger child 

“upstairs in his room.”

The mother also presented evidence of her progress with department 

goals and expectations. The department social worker acknowledged the mother 

made some effort to comply with services but said “[s]he’ll kind of . . . take one 

step forward and five back.” We agree with this assessment.

Although the mother attended parenting classes, she failed to complete all 

the assignments and appeared not to have internalized the lessons. And, while 

she participated in a mental health evaluation scheduled by the department and 

took prescription medication to level her mood swings, she only attended one 

therapy session to address anger management issues flagged by her own 

therapist and had yet to confront deep-seated trauma resulting from childhood 

events. 

We recognize the mother regularly attended twice-weekly supervised 

visits with her children and improved her housing conditions, which at one point, 
4

were deplorable. We also acknowledge substance abuse was not an issue. 

Finally, contrary to the department’s assertion, the mother’s physician reported 

she diligently scheduled and followed through with certain medical appointments.

Nonetheless, her progress on these fronts came late in the proceedings. With 

only a six-month statutory window preceding termination, the mother could not 

afford to waste any time. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000)

(noting the statutory time frames and need “for the parents to actively and 

promptly respond to those services”).

The mother argues, even if the statutory elements were technically 

satisfied, she would have benefited from a six-month extension to work towards 

reunification with her children. A department social worker testified otherwise. 

She said she did not think there was anything the department could offer to make 

a difference in the case. In her words, “[w]e have a one- and a two-year-old who 

need permanency, who need stability, who need medical needs met. And [the 

mother] is not able to provide that in these nine months. I don’t see three extra 

months helping.”

We conclude the State proved the children could not be returned to the 

mother’s custody. 

II. The State is obligated to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. 

C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493-94. The mother contends the State failed in this 

obligation because it refused to place the children with her on a trial basis. To 

the contrary, the State left the children in the mother’s care following the filing of 

the first child abuse report, only to have the mother again endanger the children 

by leaving them unsupervised. The mother herself acknowledged she was less 
5

than cooperative for a period of time following the children’s removal. Under 

these circumstances, the State did not violate its reasonable efforts mandate by 

declining to pursue a trial home placement.1

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her two 

children.

AFFIRMED.

 

1 The children’s maternal grandparents filed a “response/joinder in appellant-mother’s 

petition on appeal,” asserting “the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the 

children.” Although they intervened in the juvenile court action, they appealed no orders 

and have not raised “a specific personal or legal interest” of their own. See In re N.C.,

No. 12-0944, 2012 WL 3200862 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2012). Additionally, the 

grandparents lack standing to contest the termination of the mother’s parental rights. Id.; 

see also In re D.G., 704 N.W.2d 454, 456 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (concluding “[a] joinder 

on factual or legally specific issues as to one parent’s parental rights does not challenge 

the factual and legal reasons associated with and supporting the termination of the 

‘joining’ parent.”).