IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0400

Filed June 21, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF B.B., C.B., and D.B.

Minor Child,

D.A., Mother,

Appellant.

______________________________________________________________

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

Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental 

rights. AFFIRMED.

Sarah E. Dewein of Cunningham & Kelso, P.L.L.C, Urbandale, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Michael R. Sorci of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for 

minor children.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2

BOWER, Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental 

rights to three of her five children.1 We find there is sufficient evidence to support 

termination of the mother’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) 

(2016). We also find termination is in the best interests of the children, no 

additional time should be granted, and no exceptions apply to preclude 

termination. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

The three children involved in this appeal came to the attention of the Iowa 

Department of Human Services (DHS) July 14, 2015, due to reports of the 

mother’s substance abuse and her husband’s, the father of some of the children,

incarceration. Removal was ordered three days later and the children were 

placed with their maternal grandmother. 

Prior to removal the family often moved, sometimes staying in motels. 

The children were repeatedly exposed to the parents’ use of methamphetamine

and marijuana. The children also reported the parents would watch pornography 

and have sex while the children were in the room. Additionally, the father was 

violent, the mother was unable to protect the children from the father, and the 

mother struck the children.

When the children were removed, the mother was homeless. During 

much of the underlying child in need of assistance (CINA) proceedings, the 

mother was unable to be located. The mother had substance abuse issues but 

did not complete treatment. The mother diagnosed herself with depression but

 

1 The children’s fathers take no part in the appeal.
3

she took no steps to address her mental-health concerns. Occasionally, the 

mother would shower at the grandmother’s home but participated in no other 

visitation nor did she show an interest in the children’s therapy. 

The mother now claims she is employed part-time and has stable housing, 

but at the time of the termination hearing, DHS had been unable to verify her 

claims. At the time of the termination hearing DHS also had concerns about 

abusive behavior between the mother and her paramour. The mother claims 

DHS was unresponsive and did not properly support her attempts to improve 

herself.

The termination hearing was held September 15, 2016, and the mother’s 

parental rights were terminated March 13, 2017. The mother now appeals.

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 child. In re L.L., 

459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The mother claims there is insufficient evidence in the record to support 

termination of her parental rights. Where the juvenile court has terminated a 

parent’s rights on multiple grounds, “we need only find termination appropriate 
4

under one of these sections to affirm.” In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703, 704 (Iowa 

Ct. App. 2014).

We find the mother’s rights were properly terminated under section 

232.116(1)(d), which provides: 

The court finds that both of the following have occurred:

(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a 

child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been 

physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts 

or omissions of one or both parents, or the court has previously 

adjudicated a child who is a member of the same family to be a 

child in need of assistance after such a finding.

(2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance 

adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to 

correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the 

circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of 

services.

The mother only claims she was not offered reasonable services by DHS. 

Parents are required to challenge the reasonableness of the services and efforts 

of the State prior to the termination hearing. See In re C.D., 508 N.W.2d 97, 101 

(Iowa Ct. App. 1993). The record reveals the only request for services by the 

mother was for more options for substance abuse treatment. DHS offered the 

mother reasonable substance-abuse treatment options, and, like other services 

offered to her, the mother did not take advantage of the opportunities for support 

and change. We find the mother failed to preserve error on this issue.2

IV. Best Interests, Family Placement, and Additional Time

The mother also claims termination was not in the best interests of the 

children as the children are currently placed with their maternal grandmother and

the mother has maintained sobriety and improved her parenting skills after the 

 

2 Even if this issue had been properly preserved our opinion would remain unchanged.
5

termination hearing. The mother claims the children have witnessed her “doing 

well” and informing them her rights have been terminated may be traumatic. She 

claims her rights should not be terminated or she should at least be given an 

extension to prove her ability to maintain sobriety, housing, employment, and 

proper parenting.

The maternal grandmother is a licensed foster parent. She has overcome 

financial and housing barriers to be able to care for the children the mother would 

not parent. The mother is correct in noting the grandmother is capable of 

providing supervision of the children’s interactions with their mother. However, 

this should not continue to be required of her, nor should further instability and 

uncertainty be required of the children. Any emotional bond severed by the 

termination will be more than compensated for by the stability, care, and certainty 

provided to the children by terminating the mother’s parental rights.

The juvenile court may decide not to terminate parental rights if any 

exception set out in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) is shown. “The court has 

discretion, based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best 

interests of the child, whether to apply the factors in this section to save the 

parent-child relationship.” In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 475 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). 

We find the juvenile court properly applied its discretion in refusing to maintain 

the parental relationship simply because the children were in the care of their 

grandmother.

Finally, we find the mother does not deserve an extension of time to work 

toward reunification. These children cannot not be expected to continue their 

lives in uncertainty in the hope their mother is able to become minimally 
6

acceptable as a parent. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. The best indication of 

future performance is past behavior, and the mother has continually proven she 

is not capable of the responsibility of parenting. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 

172 (Iowa 1997).

AFFIRMED.