IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-1123

Filed October 11, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF A.H.,

Minor Child,

J.P., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott, 

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. 

AFFIRMED.

Larry J. Pettigrew of Pettigrew Law Firm, P.C., for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Nicholas Bailey of Bailey Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Altoona, guardian ad litem 

for minor child.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

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

2008. She contends the district court should have (1) returned the child to her 

care, (2) given her an additional six months to work toward reunification, or (3) 

found that termination was not in the child’s best interests. 

I. Grounds for Termination 

The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the child on 

several grounds. We may affirm the termination decision if we find clear and 

convincing evidence to support any of the cited grounds. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 

33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

The mother had a lengthy history of methamphetamine abuse while the 

child was in her care. The child was removed from her care in 2013 but, in light 

of her progress, was returned the same year. 

In early 2016, the child was again removed based on suspected drug use. 

The child remained out of the mother’s care through the termination hearing 

fifteen months later.

At the hearing, the department of human services caseworker testified that 

a drug detection patch placed on the mother from July 28, 2016 until August 12, 

2016 was positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. She also stated 

the mother “was a no-show to quite a few [drug tests], which are considered dirty 

drug screens.” According to the caseworker, the mother admitted to current 

methamphetamine use. 

The mother conceded she last used methamphetamine on the Tuesday 

before the termination hearing. She did not seek immediate reunification with her 
3

child but a six-month extension to participate in an inpatient drug treatment 

program. On our de novo review, we conclude the child could not be returned to 

the mother’s custody as set forth in Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2015), one 

of the grounds cited by the district court.

II. Request for Additional Time

A court may grant a parent additional time to work towards reunification. 

See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). The mother argues additional time was 

warranted because she recently was accepted into an inpatient drug treatment 

program, the facility would allow her child to stay with her, and she was simply 

waiting for a bed to open up. The district court denied the mother’s request, 

reasoning that “[h]er history of treatment failures [did] not . . . justify unqualified 

optimism.” The court also questioned whether the child’s possible move to the 

facility “would benefit” the child. The court stated, “If [the mother] should fail this 

program as she has failed others, the time would come off an already shortened 

time for the child in a better, stable home.” Given the mother’s poor prognosis for 

sustained recovery, we agree with this reasoning. We conclude the district court 

appropriately denied the request for a six-month extension. 

III. Best Interests of the Child

The mother argues termination was not in the child’s best interest in light 

of the bond she shared with the child. See P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41. The 

conceded bond between mother and child could not override the fact that the 

mother remained an active methamphetamine user who was unable to care for 

the child in an unsupervised setting. To add to the safety concern, the mother 

lived with the father at the time of the termination hearing. He previously choked 
4

her. He also was a regular methamphetamine user. The mother testified she 

would seek help if needed, but, after four years of services, she appeared 

oblivious to the threat he posed to her safety and the safety of her child. Finally, 

the child’s emotional well-being was compromised by the uncertainty of her 

placement. We conclude termination was in the child’s best interests.

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.

AFFIRMED.