IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-1651

Filed December 5, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF R.K. and R.N.,

Minor Children,

B.S., Mother,

Appellant,

R.N., Father of R.N,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District 

Associate Judge.

A mother of two children and the father of one of the children appeal the 

juvenile court order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Thomas G. Crabb, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Amy K. Davis of Babich Goldman, PC, Des Moines, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

John Jellineck, Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for 

minor children.

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

BOWER, Judge.

A mother of two children and the father of one of the children appeal the 

juvenile court order terminating their parental rights. We find the mother did not 

preserve error on her claim regarding reasonable efforts and termination is in the 

best interests of the children. We affirm the termination of the parents’ rights.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

B.S. is the mother of R.K., born in 2014, and Ra.N., born in 2017. The father 

of Ra.N. is Ro.N. The children were removed from the mother’s care shortly after 

Ra.N. was born because he tested positive for amphetamines. They were placed 

with Ro.N.’s mother. Both parents have a history of substance abuse. The 

mother’s parental rights to an older child were terminated in 2014. Additionally, 

Ro.N. has a history of domestic violence.

The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant 

to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2017). In November 2017, Ro.N. was 

arrested following an incident of domestic abuse against B.S., and subsequently 

pled guilty to domestic abuse assault. Ro.N. was ordered to have no contact with 

B.S. On December 14, 2017, the children were removed from the care of Ro.N.’s 

mother because she had been permitting unsupervised contact with the parents. 

R.K. was placed in the home of his paternal grandmother and Ra.N. was placed 

with a paternal uncle. Later, Ra.N. was placed in foster care.

The parents continued to struggle with substance abuse. B.S. had a 

substance abuse evaluation, but did not engage in a substance abuse treatment 

program. Ro.N. attended a number of substance abuse treatment programs, but 

did not successfully complete them. Also, the parents continued to violate the no-
3

contact order. In a permanency order filed on March 20, 2018, the juvenile court 

ordered the State to file a petition for termination of parental rights. The termination 

petition was filed on March 27.

The termination hearing was held on August 6, 2018. Ro.N. testified he had 

been arrested in July 2018 for a probation violation and was currently attending an 

inpatient treatment program as part of his probation. Ro.N. stated he was not able 

to take custody of Ra.N. at that time. Ro.N. also still needed to complete a 

domestic abuse program. B.S. testified she was ready to enter the House of Mercy 

program that day. She stated she had not seen the children since Christmas. B.S. 

testified she could not have the children returned to her at the time of the hearing, 

but asked for an extension of time.

The juvenile court terminated B.S.’s parental rights to both children under 

section 232.116(1)(b), (e), (g), and (h) (2018). Ro.N.’s parental rights to Ra.N. 

were terminated under section 232.116(1)(h).1 The court found B.S. and Ro.N. 

“struggled on this record, mightily, with regard to continuing and ongoing illegal 

drug use and recovery and engaging in services throughout the case.” The court 

determined termination of the parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests, 

stating:

The Court is confident that none of these parents can be 

custodial parents on this record at this time. The Court is also 

confident that extending out the time for the provision of services is 

not warranted and would harm these children. The children each 

need permanency and resolution. [B.S.] and [Ro.N.]’s efforts were 

“eleventh hour,” and even that assessment is generous. Both appear 

fully enmeshed in long term cycles of addiction from which, sadly, 

they have not been able to escape despite the offering of services.

 

1

 The parental rights of Ro.K., the father of R.K., were also terminated. He has not 

appealed the juvenile court’s order.
4

Neither can be trusted to follow through with their last minute shows 

of effort at obtaining treatment.

B.S. and Ro.N. now appeal the juvenile court order terminating their parental 

rights.

II. Standard of Review

The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791 

N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is needed to 

establish the grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). 

Where there is clear and convincing evidence, there is no serious or substantial 

doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the evidence. In re D.D., 

653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount concern in termination 

proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 

(Iowa 1990).

III. Reasonable Efforts

The mother claims the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite 

her with her children. She states she was unable to make contact with her social 

worker from the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), and at times did not 

know who had been assigned her case.

The State has the responsibility to make reasonable efforts, but it is the 

parent’s responsibility to demand services if they are not offered prior to the 

termination hearing. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). A 

parent should not wait until the termination hearing to raise the issue of reasonable 

efforts. In re M.B., 595 N.W.2d 815, 818 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Here, the mother 

did not raise the issue of reasonable efforts prior to the termination hearing. 
5

Furthermore, the juvenile court did not address the issue beyond finding, “Services 

were offered.” We conclude this issue has not been preserved for our review.

IV. Best Interests

The mother claims termination of her parental rights is not in the children’s 

best interests. She states it would be in the children’s best interests to give her 

more time to complete a substance abuse treatment program. She points out she 

planned to enter the House of Mercy program the day of the termination hearing. 

The father also claims termination of his parental rights is not in Ra.N.’s best 

interests. He notes he was trying to complete a substance abuse treatment 

program, as had been requested of him. The father asks for more time to work on 

reunification with his child.

In order to terminate a parent’s rights, we must determine whether 

termination is in the children’s best interests. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 776

(Iowa 2012). We “give primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best 

placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the 

physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(2); see also In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court’s findings on the 

issue of the children’s best interests. Both parents were engaged in what the 

juvenile court characterized as “eleventh hour” efforts to engage in services, after 

spending months not following DHS’s requests to successfully complete treatment 

for substance abuse. We concur in the court’s statement, “The Court is also 

confident that extending out the time for the provision of services is not warranted 

and would harm these children.” Also, “Neither can be trusted to follow through
6

with their last minute shows of effort at obtaining treatment.” The history of both 

parents showed several unsuccessful attempts at treatment and we find it is not in 

the children’s best interests to further delay the termination of the parents’ rights.

We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.