IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-1533

Filed April 1, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.,

Minor Child,

T.W., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old 

son. AFFIRMED.

Raya D. Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant 

mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Kayla Stratton of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

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

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

A mother, Tiana, appeals the termination of her parental rights to her fourth

child, M.C. She argues the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence 

to support the statutory basis for terminating her rights. After independently 

reviewing the record, we affirm.1

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

M.C. was born in November 2018. But his mother’s involvement with the 

Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) predated his birth. To set the stage, 

Tiana had three older children—born in 2015, 2016, and 2017—and was pregnant 

with twins at the time of the termination trial in this case. The juvenile court 

terminated Tiana’s parental rights to her three older children in June 2019.2 We 

affirmed that termination. In re A.B., No. 19-1089, 2019 WL 5428853, at *2 (Iowa 

Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

For the first few months of M.C.’s life, he remained in parental care. But the 

juvenile court prohibited M.C.’s contact with his father, Michael, outside of 

professionally supervised visits. The court eventually ordered M.C.’s removal 

when Tiana lied about allowing Michael unapproved contact with their children.

 

1

In termination-of-parental-rights cases, we review the proceedings de novo. In 

re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The juvenile court’s findings of fact do 

not bind us, but they deserve deference, especially when assessing the credibility 

of witnesses. Id. The State must present clear and convincing evidence of the 

grounds for termination of parental rights. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 

2010); see Iowa Code § 232.117(3) (2019). Evidence satisfies that standard if no 

serious or significant doubts exist about the correctness of conclusions of law 

drawn from the proof. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).

2 The court also terminated the parental rights of M.C.’s father, Michael, in that 

order. The court preserved Tiana’s parental rights to M.C.
3

And Tiana let M.C. develop a case of diaper rash so severe that it required 

admission to the hospital and an overnight stay. 

The court adjudicated M.C. as a child in need of assistance (CINA) in 

January 2019. Around that time, M.C. had a positive hair test for cocaine. The 

next month the police apprehended Tiana at a Hy-Vee store for shoplifting. She 

was in Michael’s company. They fought, and Michael bit her arm. The police 

charged him with domestic abuse assault causing injury.

The district court held a review hearing in April 2019. The DHS concerns 

about Tiana’s parenting skills persisted. She remained unclear about the juvenile 

court’s expectations. The court stressed the importance of participating in 

individual therapy, substance-abuse treatment, drug screens, and attending visits.

In its June 2019 order, the court found the State failed to offer clear and convincing 

evidence to support termination of Tiana’s parental rights as to M.C. 

That same month, the State filed a new petition seeking termination. After 

an August 2019 hearing at which Tiana testified, the court approved the petition.3

The court offered the following summary of relevant facts:

Tiana displayed a lack of insight as to how her choices impacted her 

children . . . . She denied being highly intoxicated or that she was an 

inappropriate caretaker. Tiana blamed her alcohol usage on DHS. 

She reported drinking every day because her children were 

removed. Tiana denied struggling with sobriety during this court 

case. She had no explanation for how she tested positive for cocaine 

or how her son M.C. also tested positive for cocaine. Tiana blamed 

DHS for the report that Tiana removed her drug patch in December 

2018. Tiana was not actively engaged in domestic violence services, 

nor was she engaged in her own mental health therapy on a 

consistent basis. Tiana had missed 8 out of 20 therapy sessions and 

was on same day scheduling due to her inconsistencies. . . . Little 

 

3 Tiana testified Michael was not the father of the twins she was expecting.
4

has changed in the mother’s response to services since the last 

hearing in May 2019. 

The court determined the State offered clear and convincing proof to 

support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (g) and (h) 

(2019). Tiana now appeals.

II. Analysis

When the juvenile court orders termination under more than one statutory 

provision, we need only find clear and convincing evidence to support one ground 

to affirm. In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 435 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). We focus today 

on paragraph (g). Under that provision, the court may terminate the parent-child 

relationship if it finds: 

(1) The child has been adjudicated a [CINA] pursuant to 

section 232.96.

(2) The court has terminated parental rights pursuant to 

section 232.117 with respect to another child who is a member of the 

same family . . . .

(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent 

continues to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services 

which would correct the situation.

(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that an additional 

period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation.

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g). 

No question, M.C. meets the first two requirements. The court adjudicated

him as a CINA in January 2019. And the court terminated Tiana’s parental rights 

to his siblings in June 2019. The third and fourth elements remain in contention. 

(A) Did the State offer clear and convincing evidence that Tiana is still unable or 

unwilling to respond to services that would remedy the situation? (B) And would 

more time to rehabilitate correct the situation? We address those questions in turn.
5

(A) Inability or unwillingness to respond to services 

Tiana contends she is able and willing to respond to services that would 

allow reunification. She claims her home is safe and appropriate for M.C. Tiana

also points out she was gainfully employed throughout the case. And she has 

engaged in family safety, risk, and permanency services that would allow her to 

resume care of M.C. 

These circumstances do not tell the whole story. Instead, the record shows 

Tiana has not gained the skills or knowledge necessary to safely parent M.C. 

despite the duration of DHS involvement. Under paragraph (g), the prior 

termination will “ordinarily have provided a useful insight” about the parent’s ability 

to function within the goals of an earlier permanency plan. See In re L.H., 480 

N.W.2d 43, 46 (Iowa 1992). 

Indeed, those useful insights are available here. The DHS report noted: 

Given the very long history of services provided to this mother 

regarding her three other children’s CINA cases, her lack of insight 

shown at the termination hearing regarding those children and this 

child’s need for permanency, the State is again asking the Court to 

address termination of the mother’s parental rights as to this child.

In our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence Tiana is 

unable or unwilling to respond to the services necessary to ensure a stable 

environment for M.C. Tiana refuses to address her substance-abuse issues or to 

engage in individual therapy for her mental-health needs. She has not cooperated

with DHS workers and blames them for her lack of sobriety. She has not been 

forthcoming about domestic abuse perpetrated by Michael. And the juvenile court 

found her lack of candor about the father of the twins to be more evidence of her 

lack of “protective capacity.” The State met the third element.
6

(B) Additional rehabilitation period to correct the situation

Tiana insists additional time to engage in rehabilitative services will correct 

the situation that led to M.C.’s removal. We disagree with that prediction. As a 

practical matter, the juvenile court’s dismissal of the termination petition in M.C.’s 

case in June 2019 provided Tiana with another period of rehabilitation. She did 

not take that chance to seek substance-abuse treatment or individual counseling. 

At the August termination hearing, she refused to say whether she had consumed 

alcohol in the past few months. And she continued to be evasive about her 

exposure to domestic violence. After viewing the record as a whole, we find clear 

and convincing evidence that more time for rehabilitation would not fix the 

problems with Tiana’s parenting. We affirm the order of termination under section 

232.116(1)(g).

AFFIRMED.