IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-2006

Filed March 30, 2022

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A. and L.A., 

Minor Children,

C.P., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Steven Guiter, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals a district court order terminating her parental rights. 

AFFIRMED.

Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant 

mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee state.

William E. Sales, III, Des Moines, for minor children.

Terzo Steves, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother appeals a district court order terminating her parental rights. 

There is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the 

mother’s parental rights, termination is in the children’s best interests, and none of 

the permissive exceptions to termination should be applied. We affirm the decision 

of the district court.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

C.P. is the mother of L.A., born in 2010, and J.A., born in 2011.1 The Iowa 

Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family in 2019. 

There were reports that the children were confined to their rooms and had to ask 

permission to leave for any reason, including going to the bathroom. The children 

were afraid to move freely about their home. Alarms were installed on their 

bedroom doors and baby monitors were placed in their bedrooms. Concerns were 

raised about the mother’s form of discipline. Restriction of food was used as a 

form of punishment. J.A. was required to stand on his tip toes for long periods of 

time. He was slapped in the face. J.A. was required to sit for long periods of time, 

sometimes up to five hours. L.A. had been sexually abused by the mother’s 

paramour.

J.A. was hospitalized for a mental-health assessment, which he enjoyed, 

stating, “I got to go to the bathroom anytime I wanted.” The mother was angry 

about the way J.A. was treated at the hospital because “the staff treated him too 

 

1 The parental rights of the children’s biological parents were terminated in 

Minnesota. In 2018, they were adopted by C.P., who is their biological maternal 

aunt and legal mother.
3

nice” and treated his stay like a vacation. The children were removed from the 

mother’s care on January 3, 2020, and placed in foster care.

The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant 

to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2020). The mother participated in parenting 

sessions and visitation. She began therapy but was unable to understand how her 

actions were detrimental to the children. The children were not to have contact 

with the maternal grandparents due to previous abuse allegations, but the mother 

continued to allow the maternal grandparents to have contact with the children.

2

 

The mother struggled to comprehend the need for boundaries with the maternal 

grandparents.

The children attended therapy due to mental-health concerns. They 

continued to have behavioral difficulties. Both children demonstrated food 

insecurities by hoarding and sneaking food. The mother did not follow through in 

a timely manner with medical and therapy appointments for the children. L.A. has 

a diagnosis of an adjustment disorder. J.A. has a diagnosis of attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and reactive attachment disorder. 

On December 16, 2020, the district court issued a permanency order giving 

the mother an additional six months to work on reunification with the children. The 

mother continued with therapy to address her mental-health problems. A 

psychological assessment found the mother had a “very rigid neurotic adjustment 

to life.” 

 

2 The children were previously in a guardianship with the grandparents, but the 

guardianship was ended after J.A. was injured while in their care.
4

DHS had significant concerns that the mother was resorting to previous 

behaviors that led to the initial removal. The mother continued to struggle in 

making sure J.A.’s medication were filled in a timely manner. The mother 

continued to make references to false allegations by the children. There were 

concerns that the mother was coaching the children to keep secrets. While the 

mother’s therapist reported the mother accepted responsibility for previous abuse, 

such report was in contrast to the mother’s statements to the children’s therapists, 

foster placement, DHS, and other service providers.

The State filed a petition on May 18, 2021, seeking to terminate the mother’s 

parental rights. At the termination hearing, the mother admitted she continued to 

state that the children made false allegations of abuse. She also conceded that 

she had treated J.A. differently than L.A.; she stated she did not understand J.A.’s 

ADHD and would punish him for acting out. The mother also recognized that it 

would be difficult for the court to return the children without evidence that she had 

completely changed her ideas about punishment. 

The district court entered an order on December 14, terminating the

mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) (2021).3 Although L.A. was 

 

3 Section 232.116(1)(f) applies when the district court finds the following have 

occurred:

(1) The child is four years of age or older.

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

section 232.96.

(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of 

the child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or 

for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home 

has been less than thirty days.

(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present 

time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents 

as provided in section 232.102.
5

over ten years old and objected to the termination, the court concluded that 

termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The 

court stated, “It is desirable to continue the child’s current placement because it 

provides a safe and stable home with parents who have demonstrated the ability 

to meet the needs of the children.” The court did not apply any of the exceptions 

to termination found in section 232.116(3). The mother appeals the termination of 

her parental rights.

II. Standard of Review

Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d

764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear

and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear

and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to

the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary

concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa

2014).

III. Discussion

We follow a three-step analysis in reviewing the termination of a parent’s 

rights. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). We first consider whether there 

is a statutory ground for termination of the parent’s rights under section 232.116(1). 

Id. Second, we look to whether termination of the parent’s rights is in the child’s 

best interests. Id. (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third, we consider whether 

any of the exceptions to termination contained in section 232.116(3) should be 

applied. Id.
6

A. Statutory Grounds

The mother does not dispute that the statutory grounds for termination of 

her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) were met.4 Therefore, we are not 

required to discuss this step in analyzing whether the district court properly 

terminated her parental rights. Id. at 40. On our de novo review, however, we find 

there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show the children were 

more than four years old, there was a CINA adjudication, they had been removed 

from the mother’s care for twenty months at the time of the termination hearing, 

and they could not be safely returned to the mother’s care. We find the record 

supports terminating the mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f).

B. Best Interests

The mother claims termination of her parental rights was not in the 

children’s best interests. In considering the best interests of a child, we give 

“primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the 

long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and 

emotional needs of the child under section 232.116(2).” Id. at 41. “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.” Id.

The district court aptly found:

The same harms exist today as at the time of removal. The mother 

cannot consistently acknowledge the abuse and neglect the children

 

4 The mother’s appellate brief combines all of the issues on appeal into one 

sentence. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d) (requiring the petition on appeal to 

substantially comply with form 5 in rule 6.1401), 6.1401–Form 5 (requiring 

separate issue headings and other requirements for each issue raised).
7

experienced in her care. She has continued to be unable to schedule 

medical appointments and communicate the appointment times to 

the foster parents and school. Prescription refills have continued to 

be a problem. While mother has at times improved the condition of 

her home it continues to be a problem.

The mother has not fully recognized how her actions were detrimental to 

the children. She needs to address her own mental-health concerns and is unable 

to meet the children’s “physical, mental, and emotional needs.” See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(2). The children need a parent who can consistently meet their mentalhealth needs and provide them with stability. This is the second termination of 

parental rights the children have endured. Both J.A. and L.A. have been removed 

from their home for twenty months and are “desperately in need of permanency.” 

We find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. 

C. Permissive Exceptions

Once we have established that the termination of parental rights is in the 

children's best interests, the last step of our analysis is to determine whether any

exceptions in section 232.116(3) apply to preclude the termination. In re D.W.,

791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). There are five exceptions to a finding of 

termination:

a. A relative has legal custody of the child.

b. The child is over ten years of age and objects to the 

termination.

c. There 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.

d. It is necessary to place the child in a hospital, facility, or 

institution for care and treatment and the continuation of the parentchild relationship is not preventing a permanent family placement for 

the child.

e. The absence of a parent is due to the parent’s admission 

or commitment to any institution, hospital, or health facility or due to 

active service in the state or federal armed forces.
8

Iowa Code § 232.116(3). 

While a finding of any of these factors allows us to choose not to terminate 

parental rights, “[t]he 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)

(quoting In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474–75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011)). We may use 

our 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 parentchild relationship.” Id. (quoting D.S., 806 N.W.2d at 475).

First, the mother argues that the children’s objection to the termination 

should preclude termination. However, J.A. was only nine years old at the time of 

the termination, so this exception does not apply to him. L.A., who was more than 

ten years old, objected to the termination of the mother’s parental rights. See id.

§ 232.116(3)(b). L.A. stated that she wanted to return to the mother, but if that 

could not happen, then she wanted to remain with the foster parents. The court 

found the child should continue in the current placement “because it provides a 

safe and stable home with parents who have demonstrated the ability to meet the 

needs of the children.” The mother was not able to meet the child’s needs. We 

find the court properly decided not to apply this exception to termination of parental 

rights.

The mother also asserts termination would be detrimental to the children 

due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship. See id. § 232.116(1)(3)(c). 

The record demonstrates that a bond exists between the mother and L.A. 

However, L.A. appears guarded in her statements and says only what she thinks 
9

she is supposed to say in order to protect her mother’s feelings. The bond between 

J.A. and his mother exists to a lesser degree than the bond that exists between his 

sister and his mother. Further, a bond is not enough to prevent termination. See

D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 709 (holding that in analyzing this exception, “our 

consideration must center on whether the child will be disadvantaged by

termination, and whether the disadvantage overcomes [the parent’s] inability to 

provide for [the child’s] developing needs”). The instant record is lacking clear and 

convincing evidence that a termination would disadvantage either child. We, like 

the district court, decline to apply this permissive exception. 

We affirm the district court’s decision terminating the mother’s parental 

rights.

AFFIRMED.