IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-2131

Filed February 25, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.,

Minor Child,

K.F., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William Price, District 

Associate Judge.

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

2012. AFFIRMED.

Emily K. Tisinger of Springer & Laughlin Law Offices, P.C., Des Moines, 

for appellant mother.

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

Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Kevin Brownell, 

Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.

Stephie Tran, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

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 son, born in 

2012. She (1) challenges the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court 

and (2) contends termination was not in the child’s best interests. 

I. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to two 

statutory provisions. We find it necessary to address only one: whether the child 

could be returned to the mother’s custody. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)

(2013); In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (we may affirm if we 

find clear and convincing evidence to support any of the grounds cited by the 

juvenile court).

Our de novo review of the record reveals the following facts. The 

Department of Human Services became involved with the family in January 2013

based on the mother’s mental health and the child’s exposure to domestic 

violence. The child was adjudicated in need of assistance but remained with his 

mother. 

Two months after the adjudication, the juvenile court removed the child 

from the mother’s care and placed him with the mother’s aunt and uncle. The 

transfer was based on the mother’s failure to cooperate with mental health 

services, her defiance of an admonishment to keep the child away from the 

child’s father, her decision to take the child to her new boyfriend’s house or leave 

the child with relatives while she spent nights with the boyfriend, and a claimed 

assault on her grandmother. The mother stipulated to the need for removal. The 

child remained with the aunt and uncle through the balance of the proceedings.
3

The mother visited the child regularly and, according to a department 

social worker, “demonstrat[ed] positive parenting skills.” Several months after 

the child’s removal, she also began attending individual therapy sessions. 

Despite this progress, the department reported she was “distracted from 

benefitting from services tailored to reunify her with” the child. 

The mother’s failure to commit to reunification services other than visits 

continued into the fall of 2013. The department changed course and found an 

inability “to provide minimally adequate parenting.” The State petitioned to 

terminate her parental rights.

In early 2014, the State dismissed the petition as to the mother. Two 

months later, the mother tested positive for marijuana in her system, a new factor 

raising concerns about the mother’s reunification prospects.1The mother was 

also arrested for hitting her grandfather—conduct she attempted to explain rather 

than deny. She was charged with domestic assault, a charge that was pending 

at the time of the termination hearing.

The department concluded the mother was not “able to make the 

necessary behavior changes that were anticipated when the court ordered that 

she be allowed additional time to reunify.” The State again petitioned to 

terminate her parental rights. 

At the termination hearing, the State initially elicited testimony from an 

expert with the federally-recognized Indian tribe in which the child was enrolled. 

The expert testified he would have the same safety and welfare concerns as the 

 

1 The department did not require regular drug testing during the first year of the 

proceedings because drug use did not appear to be a concern.
4

department “if this were a hearing within our own tribal system.” He further 

testified tribal services were not available in Iowa but agreed the tribe could 

provide no “traditional and customary support and resolution actions or services”

other than those provided by the department. 

A department social worker testified the mother was participating in 

services, including therapy, visits, and a young woman’s group. He nonetheless

recommended termination of her parental rights based on her sometimes 

strained relationship with the child’s caregivers. 

We are not persuaded the mother’s relationship with her aunt and uncle 

was grounds to terminate the mother’s parental rights; both testified in support of 

the mother and stated they were fully behind her efforts to reunify with the child. 

However, termination was warranted based on the risk of harm to the child if 

returned to the mother’s full-time care. The mother had yet to gain sufficient 

insight into her own behaviors to be able to control her aggression. She also 

showed a level of immaturity in her conduct that jeopardized the safety of her 

child. For these reasons, we conclude the child could not be returned to her 

custody. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4).

II. Termination must also be in the child’s best interests. Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(2); In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). As noted, the 

mother shared a strong bond with the child. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). 

The child was also placed with supportive relatives. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(3)(a). These exceptions to termination might have carried the day but 

for the setbacks described above. Those setbacks after the statutory deadlines 

for pursuit of termination weakened the mother’s case for a continued legal 
5

relationship with the child. As the juvenile court stated, the child was two years 

old and had “been in limbo with respect to whether he [could be] reunified with 

his mother for over half of his life” and “[e]fforts to get [the mother] in a position to 

have this child in [her] custody have been exhausted.” Under these 

circumstances, we agree termination of the mother’s parental rights to this child 

was in the child’s best interests. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 

1997) (“A child should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural 

parent.”).

AFFIRMED.