IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1666

Filed February 25, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF L.B.,

Minor Child,

B.B., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William A. Price, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights. 

AFFIRMED.

Colin L. McCormack of Van Cleaf & McCormack Law Firm, L.L.P., Des 

Moines, for appellant mother.

Bryan J. Tingle of Tingle Law Firm, Des Moines, for father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney 

General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Kevin Brownell, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee State.

ConGarry Williams, Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for minor child.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2

DANILSON, C.J.

A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her 

child, L.B., born in February 2013.1 The juvenile court terminated the mother’s 

rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2013). She 

contends there is insufficient evidence to support termination under either ground 

and that the bond between mother and child should preclude termination in any 

event. 

We conduct a de novo review of termination-of-parental-rights 

proceedings. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010).

On appeal, we may affirm the juvenile court’s termination order on any 

ground we find supported by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 707. Upon 

our de novo review, we conclude grounds for termination exist under section 

232.116(1)(h).2

Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) provides that termination may be 

ordered when there is clear and convincing evidence that a child three years of 

age or younger who has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) 

and removed from the parents’ care for at least the last six consecutive months 

cannot be returned to the parents’ custody at the time of the termination hearing. 

At the time of the termination trial, L.B. was not yet two years old, was 

adjudicated a CINA on January 27, 2014, and had been out of the mother’s 

custody since November 15, 2013. L.B. was removed from the mother’s custody 

 

1

The putative father’s rights were also terminated. He has not appealed.

2 The juvenile court’s findings are supported by the evidence, and the final ruling 

provides a well-reasoned analysis, with which we agree. We only summarize the 

findings necessary to this opinion. 
3

after another child, a half-sibling, suffered burns while in the mother’s care. In 

the CINA adjudication order, the court found:

There is substantial evidence to support the allegations in the 

removal application. The child’s life or health would be in imminent 

danger if returned to the custody of a parent. The mother is facing 

criminal charges involving the intentional physical abuse of another

unrelated child. The child was badly burned while allegedly in her 

sole care. . . . Placement outside the parental home is necessary 

because continued placement in or a return to the home would be 

contrary to the child’s welfare because of exposure to physical 

abuse, criminal conduct, and improper supervision.

L.B. was placed in the maternal grandmother’s custody and care.3 In May 2014, 

the mother absconded with the child. The two were located in Las Vegas, 

Nevada, in June. The child was returned to Iowa and placed in foster care. The 

child could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination trial 

because the mother was in jail in Nevada,

4

her mental health issues remained 

unresolved,5and criminal charges related to the injured child were still pending.

 

3

In the petition on appeal, the mother contends the minor child was not outside the 

mother’s custody for six months as she was with the child every day although technically 

placed with the maternal grandmother. However, this issue was not addressed by the 

juvenile court, and we find it not preserved for our review. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 

764, 773 (Iowa 2012) (“[T]he general rule that appellate arguments must first be raised 

in the trial court applies to CINA and termination of parental rights cases.”).

4 The mother was awaiting extradition. She was not transported from Nevada for the 

termination trial because she was pregnant and authorities believed delivery was 

imminent. (The termination ruling suggested she was in jail until she gave birth.) She 

was given the opportunity to testify by deposition but invoked her Fifth Amendment 

rights. 

5 The mother was committed to a mental health facility in 2008, at which time her mother 

alleged chronic substance abuse and mental health impairment. The disposition order 

entered on March 20, 2014, indicates the mother “struggles with anxiety and depression” 

and “should obtain a psychiatric evaluation to determine if medication would be helpful.” 

On April 7, 2014, Dr. J. Patrick Bertroche wrote a letter in which he diagnosed the 

mother with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; medication 

was not recommended, but ongoing therapy was. The mother attended one therapy 

session with Alicia Wilkinson in April, who recommended she participate in a full 

psychological evaluation. The mother absconded about this time. 
4

In deciding whether to terminate parental rights based on a particular 

ground, we must give primary consideration to “the child’s safety, . . . the best 

placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and . . . 

the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code

§ 232.116(2); see D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 708. The mother asks that her parental 

rights not be terminated because she and the child have a “substantial bond.” 

Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) allows the juvenile court not to terminate when 

“[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 parent-child 

relationship.” “‘The factors weighing against termination in section 232.116(3) 

are permissive, not mandatory.’” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014) 

(citation omitted). We are not persuaded the bond between mother and child 

precludes termination here. The child deserves stability and permanency, which 

the mother is unable to provide. We therefore affirm the termination of the 

mother’s parental rights. 

AFFIRMED.