IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0822

Filed August 9, 2023

IN THE INTERST OF L.L. and L.L.,

Minor Children,

J.W., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED. 

Douglas Cook, Jewell, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Ricki Leigh Osborn Stubbs of Osborn Stubbs Law Office P.C., Fort Dodge, 

attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two young 

children. She claims the juvenile court should have granted a six-month extension 

for reunification efforts. She also claims that termination is not in the children’s 

best interests. And she contends the court should not have terminated her 

parental rights due to her close bond with the children. We conclude a six-month 

extension is unwarranted. Termination is in the children’s best interests. And we 

decline to apply a permissive exception. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

This family came to the attention of the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) in September 2020 because of concerns of substance abuse by 

the mother and father when the eldest child tested positive for marijuana at birth. 

Later tests reflected the presence of methamphetamine in both the mother and 

father. This child was adjudicated in need of assistance in May 2021, and was 

removed from parental custody in August. The younger child, born in April 2022, 

was removed from parental custody in July 2022 and adjudicated in need of 

assistance in September. The juvenile court granted a six-month extension for 

reunification efforts in regards to the eldest child in July 2022. 

Despite the case beginning with concerns about the family’s substance 

abuse, the focus of the case shifted. By the termination hearing, all parties agreed 

the mother had addressed her substance abuse. But new concerns, mainly 

domestic violence perpetrated by the father against the mother and the mother’s 

unwillingness to protect her children from that violence, became a focus of the 

proceedings. 
3

The father assaulted the mother in the fall of 2022, resulting in a no-contact 

order being put in place in October. The father was ultimately placed in a halfway 

house. Despite the order prohibiting contact between the mother and father, the 

mother helped organize the father’s presence at a semi-supervised visit. As a 

result, she was restricted to fully-supervised visits in January 2023. That did not 

stop her from continuing to contact the children’s father. Exhibits submitted at the 

termination hearing show nearly continuous contact between the mother and the 

father while the father was in jail. The mother was arrested for violating the nocontact order and spent about a month in jail in April 2023. The mother minimized 

the violence and expressed to HHS providers that domestic violence is simply 

something that every family must address. 

The department also had concerns involving the mother’s mental health. 

The HHS caseworker assigned to the family described the mother’s mental health 

as “an emotional roller coaster.” The provider stated, “When things are rough for 

her, she struggles with understanding things. She struggles with just daily life, 

attending visits, caring for the boys at that time. And she just struggles with not 

having any sort of stability when her mental health is not okay.” The mother has 

done little to address these highlighted concerns, ceasing to attend therapy in 

January 2023. 

A termination hearing was held May 2, 2023. The mother conceded she 

could not immediately resume custody of the children and would need another 

month before she could regain custody. She expressed her desire to move to 

Illinois, where she has more family that could act as supports. The court 
4

terminated the mother’s parental rights to both children under Iowa Code section 

232.116(1)(h) (2023). The mother now appeals.1 

II. Standard of Review

We review the termination of parental rights de novo. In re P.L., 778 

N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Our fundamental concern is the best interests of the 

children. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o). 

III. Best Interests of the Children

The mother claims termination is not in the children’s best interests. See 

Iowa Code § 232.116(2). When considering this issue, we “give primary 

consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the longterm nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional 

condition and needs of the child.” Id. 

We find termination to be in the children’s best interests. The mother has 

consistently chosen to continue her relationship with the father despite the danger 

he poses to herself and the children. The mother was arrested for violating the nocontact order only about a month before the termination hearing. While she 

testified at the termination hearing that she would end her relationship with the 

father, the juvenile court did not find her assertions credible. As the juvenile court 

described:

At the hearing, the mother averred that she understood the 

gravity of the situation and would not allow [the father] around the 

children in the future. Those words, however, rang hollow and were 

not credible. [The mother] has shown through her actions that she 

does not believe that the father poses a danger to her children and 

that she has no problem with him being around them. Until [the 

mother] truly has the epiphany that [the father] is dangerous in his 

1 The court also terminated the father’s parental rights. He does not appeal. 
5

current mental state, she will not be able to protect her children from 

him. 

We defer to the juvenile court’s well-supported credibility determination. 

See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). The mother has also failed to 

address her mental health; she stopped attending therapy in January. The HHS 

caseworker described how the mother could not perform basic tasks when her 

mental health deteriorates. The children would not be safe in her custody. The 

mother also conceded that she could not safely resume custody of the children at 

the time of the hearing. The children are placed in the same foster home and are 

integrated into this pre-adoptive placement. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b). 

Termination is in the children’s best interests. 

IV. Permissive Exception

The mother claims the juvenile court should have declined to terminate her 

parental rights because of the close bond she shares with the children. See Iowa 

Code § 232.116(3)(c). The exceptions found in section 232.116(3) “are permissive, 

not mandatory.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475 (Iowa 2018). The parent bears 

the burden of establishing an exception under that section. Id. at 476. The parent 

must demonstrate such with clear and convincing evidence. Iowa Code 

§ 232.113(3)(c). 

We, like the juvenile court, decline to apply the exception found in section 

232.116(3)(c). There is little evidence of a close bond—both children are very 

young and have spent most of their lives out of the mother’s custody. Moreover, 

as much as a bond exists, the mother has not met her burden to show that
6

termination will be detrimental to the children. As described above, the children 

cannot safely be returned to the mother. 

V. Six-Month Extension

The mother requests a six-month extension for reunification efforts. A court 

may grant a six-month extension if it can “enumerate the specific factors, 

conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the 

determination that the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no 

longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code 

§ 232.104(2)(b). 

An extension is unwarranted. The mother already received an extension in 

July 2022, which extended this case by another ten months. In that time, the father 

assaulted the mother and a no-contact order was put in place, the mother lost 

semi-supervised visitation for violating the order, and she subsequently spent 

about a month in jail for further violating the order. The mother stopped attending 

therapy in January 2023. In short, the mother has made no progress since the last 

extension was granted that would suggest additional time would be productive. 

AFFIRMED.