IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1948

Filed February 8, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF C.G., N.G., T.G., P.R. and B.R.,

Minor Children,

D.J-A., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, 

District Associate Judge.

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

Robert W. Davison, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Annette F. Martin, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor 

children.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.
2

BULLER, Judge.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights for five children: 

C.G., N.G., T.G., P.R., and B.R. The mother filed a bare-bones petition on appeal. 

Even generously reading the petition on appeal, we find no basis to disturb the 

juvenile court’s ruling and affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a lengthy 

history of involvement with this family, with founded reports of abuse against the 

mother or the father1 dating back to 2014. Most relevant to this appeal is the HHS 

investigation relating to domestic violence perpetrated between the father and the 

mother, in the presence of the children, throughout 2020. Police were called to the 

home for domestic violence on at least half a dozen occasions, some with reported 

injuries. There were multiple reports of alcohol and drug abuse inside the home, 

sometimes related to the domestic violence and sometimes independent of it. 

HHS also made a founded report that the mother slapped one of the children so 

hard that she left visible injuries. 

During the HHS investigation, the mother generally made excuses for the 

father and minimized the domestic violence. In July 2020, the mother briefly asked 

the father to leave the home, but she soon changed her mind and invited him back 

1 All references to “the father” in this appeal refer to M.R., the biological father of 

P.R. and B.R. M.R.’s parental rights were also terminated, and he has not 

appealed. The juvenile court made findings about threats M.R. made toward 

various providers during the life of the case, as well as his lack of interest in 

maintaining any connection with the children. An HHS worker also testified that 

M.R. had a lengthy substance-abuse history, “primarily meth.” C.G., N.G., and 

T.G. have a different biological father, not relevant to this appeal.
3

to “work things out.” Less than two weeks later, police were called to the home 

due to reports of the mother and father fighting. By August, the mother again told 

HHS that the father would not be moving back into the home and agreed to a safety 

plan effectuating the move. At one point, the mother obtained a civil no-contact 

order against the father (who had by then left the state), but she allowed him to 

visit her and the children nonetheless. Some months after that, the mother bought 

the father a plane ticket back to Iowa. When the father arrived, the domestic 

violence almost immediately resumed, again fueled by alcohol. Throughout this 

time period, the mother was repeatedly dishonest with HHS about the status of her 

relationship with the father. 

The mother has a significant history of substance abuse. She completed 

an outpatient treatment program in March 2021, but in April was arrested for 

operating while intoxicated and criminal mischief. She passed some drug testing 

around this time but missed approximately one-third of her testing appointments. 

Sweat patches between August 2021 and May 2022 tested positive for 

methamphetamine on one occasion and cocaine twice. The mother admitted 

some but not all of the drug use to HHS, generally made inconsistent statements, 

and denied all but one instance of cocaine use at trial. From September 2021 to 

January 2022, the mother had multiple negative drug tests, but she again missed 

about one-third of her testing appointments. 

The mother also has a significant history of mental-health problems. In 

December 2020, she was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety 

and depressed mood, as well as a moderate episode of recurrent major depressive 

disorder and anxiety. Although the mother participated in some mental-health 
4

treatment, by November 2021 she was no longer taking medicine related to mental 

health or attending therapy. In December 2021, the mother was diagnosed with 

ADHD and the prescribed medication had a positive, albeit temporary, effect on 

her progress toward reunification. By the time of the mother’s positive drug tests 

in 2022, she reported she was no longer interested in the prescribed medication 

and she stopped attending therapy. 

The mother also has significant problems with judgment and inviting 

dangerous men into the home and potentially exposing the children to them. In 

addition to the substantial domestic-violence history with the father discussed 

above, the mother invited one paramour into her home that stole from her; dated 

another man who was in prison; allowed one of the children to view nude photos 

and sexual messages on her iPad; and engaged in a relationship with a coworker 

that concluded with the man stealing her vehicle and leaving bite marks on her 

face. According to HHS, at least one of these men “has an extensive criminal 

history of assault.” 

The family had a tumultuous participation with services, and the mother 

never progressed beyond semi-supervised visitation after the children were 

removed from the home. Although the mother occasionally made intermittent 

progress during the life of the case, her substance abuse and dishonesty caused 

repeat setbacks and raised serious doubts about her ability to care for the children. 

Even the children expressed concern about who would be there to “check on them” 

if they were required to stay overnight with the mother in the future. 
5

Following a contested hearing, the guardian ad litem joined the State in 

requesting termination for all five children. The juvenile court followed that request, 

and this appeal follows.

II. Standard of Review

We generally review an order to terminate parental rights de novo. In re 

Z.K., 973 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022). “We are not bound by the juvenile court’s 

findings of fact, but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility 

of witnesses.” Id. (quoting In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010)).

III. Discussion

The termination related to C.G., T.G., N.G., and P.R. is supported by Iowa 

Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2022). We agree with the State that it is unclear from 

her petition exactly what the mother contests about the statutory elements. In any 

event, we agree with the juvenile court that all elements were met. These children 

were at least four years of age, they were adjudicated in need of assistance, they 

have been out of parental custody since August 2020 (well in excess of twelve 

months) with no trial periods at home, and there is clear and convincing evidence 

the children cannot be returned to the parents. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f). 

As to the last element, we are most persuaded the children cannot be returned to 

the mother’s care due to the mother’s repeated drug use, dishonesty, failure to 

address her mental-health and substance-abuse problems through therapy or 

otherwise, and her repeated participation in domestic violence (including as an 

offender and enabler). See id. § 232.116(1)(f)(4). Under our case law, we 

presume that the numerous missed drug tests would have been positive for illegal 

substances. See In re. R.A., No. 21-0746, 2021 WL 4891011, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. 
6

Oct. 20, 2021) (stating this proposition and collecting cases). We also agree with 

the juvenile court that the mother lacks any significant insight into how her 

behavior, relationships, and conduct have traumatized and endangered the 

children, and it appears she has taken limited steps to rectify these concerns even 

over the lengthy duration of the child-in-need-of-assistance and termination 

proceedings. This offers good reason to think the mother’s past failure to provide 

adequate care will continue in the future. See In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 

(Iowa 2020) ("[T]he parents’ past performance . . . may indicate the quality of care 

the parent is capable of providing in the future.” (citation omitted)). 

The termination related to B.R. is supported by Iowa Code section 

232.116(1)(h). The argument related to B.R. in the mother’s petition on appeal is 

three sentences and a sentence fragment, none of which make a coherent legal 

argument. To the extent the mother challenges termination for B.R., we agree with 

the juvenile court that all of the statutory elements were met. At the relevant time, 

B.R. was three or younger, he was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance, 

he was removed from the mother’s physical care in August 2020 (well in excess of 

six months before termination) with no trial periods at home, and there is clear and 

convincing evidence he cannot be returned to the parents. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(1)(h). We are persuaded by largely the same evidence that supports 

termination for the other children, including the volatile home life supplied by the 

mother and the mother’s failure to adequately address her ongoing mental-health 

or substance-abuse problems. 

The mother also argues termination is not in the children’s best interests. 

See id. § 232.116(2). Again, the mother’s repeated drug use, dishonesty, failure 
7

to address her mental health and substance abuse, and domestic violence 

convince us termination is in the children’s best interests. These children deserve 

permanency. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010) (“It is well-settled law 

that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground 

for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to 

be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.”).

Finally, a block quote and related language in the mother’s petition could be 

construed as a request to invoke the permissive bond exception at Iowa Code 

section 232.116(3)(c). We assume without deciding that this issue was properly 

preserved and adequately presented. The mother bears the burden of proof. In 

re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). While it is true that the mother 

expressed the subjective belief that she has a strong bond with her children, there 

is little support for that claim in the record. The more credible evidence is that the 

domestic violence and the mother’s struggles with mental health and substance 

abuse have undermined if not eliminated any meaningful bond. We also credit the 

HHS worker’s testimony that there is a significant risk further contact with the 

mother will only serve to re-traumatize the children. As a result, we find the mother 

failed to carry her burden, decline to apply the permissive bond exception, and 

affirm the termination.

AFFIRMED.