IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1885

Filed February 25, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF T.B.,

Minor Child,

M.S., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winnebago County, Karen K. Salic, 

District Associate Judge. 

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

Charles H. Biebesheimer of Stillman Law Firm, Clear Lake, for appellant.

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

Attorney General, and Adam Sauer, County Attorney, for appellee.

Theodore Hovda, Garner, for father.

Andrew Gordon of Bakke & Gordon Law Offices, Forest City, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor child.

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

MULLINS, J.

The mother appeals from termination of her parental rights.1 She 

contends the juvenile court erred in finding the exceptions under Iowa Code 

section 232.116(3)(a) and (c) (2013) did not apply to prevent termination. We 

affirm. 

We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re A.M., 

843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). We give weight to the factual determinations 

of the juvenile court, especially with regard to witness credibility, but are not 

bound by them. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). Our primary 

consideration is the best interest of the child. Id. at 776.

Section 232.116(3) provides the court need not terminate parental rights if, 

under section 232.116(3)(a), “[a] relative has legal custody of the child”; or, under 

232.116(3)(c), “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the termination 

would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parentchild relationship.” “‘The factors weighing against termination in section 

232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory.’” A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 113 (quoting In 

re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474-75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011)). “[T]he court may use its 

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.” Id. The juvenile court found neither of the exceptions 

applied in this case. 

 

1 The father’s rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 
3

With respect to subsection (3)(a), “[a] relative has legal custody of the 

child,” the juvenile court found, “It is true that [T.B.] is placed with relatives [the 

paternal grandparents]; however, she is not even two years old yet, and to keep 

her in a non-permanent living situation for the remaining 16+ years of her life is 

needlessly harmful to her.” We agree with the juvenile court. T.B. is not yet two 

years old and has spent a year out of her mother’s care. The mother does not 

challenge the court’s finding that the evidence supports the statutory grounds for 

termination. Under the circumstances, it is not in T.B.’s best interest to delay 

permanency because she is placed with the paternal grandparents.2 Therefore, 

we do not apply the exception to prevent termination.

With respect to subsection (3)(c), “clear and convincing evidence that the 

termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of 

the parent-child relationship,” the juvenile court found

[W]hile [T.B.] does appear to enjoy spending time with her parents, 

[the mother] for an unfortunately long time did not regularly exercise 

visitation. Of late she has been much better in that area, but 

neither her or [the father’s] interactions with [T.B.] are those of a 

parent and child, but rather simply someone [T.B.] likes to play with 

when she is presented to her. This does not demonstrate that they 

have a bond, or at the very least a bond so strong that legally 

severing the parent-child relationship would be harmful or 

detrimental to [T.B.]

 

2 The mother complains here, as she did before the juvenile court, that the father has an 

unfair advantage in that his parents have custody of T.B. and therefore he will be able to

see her despite having his parental rights terminated, and the mother will not. The 

juvenile court found the paternal grandparents complied with the visitation and 

supervision schedule with their son and there is no reason to believe they will not comply 

with future court orders regarding his contact with T.B. We agree and see no reason to 

disturb this finding. 
4

We note, as did the juvenile court, that the mother was very sporadic about 

attending visitation with T.B. until close to the termination hearing. There was a 

six-month period during this case when the mother did not see T.B. at all, 

followed a few months later by another one-month stretch of no contact. In all, 

more than half the time T.B. was out of the mother’s care, the mother had no 

contact with T.B. T.B. was originally removed from the mother’s care due to 

substance abuse problems which are still unresolved. The mother has a long 

history of substance abuse with multiple relapses and numerous failed drug tests 

during the life of this case. T.B. has been with the paternal grandparents for half 

her life. They are approved to be considered to adopt her. She has been doing 

well in their home. On our de novo review and giving deference to the credibility 

determinations of the juvenile court, we cannot find that severing the parent-child 

relationship would be detrimental to T.B.’s best interests. 

AFFIRMED.