IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0536

Filed June 19, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C. and A.C.,

Minor Children,

C.C., Father,

Appellant,

N.R., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.

A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights. 

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Cole J. Mayer of Des Moines Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for 

appellant father.

Jeremy M. Evans of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant 

mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Nancy L. Peitz of Pietz Law Office, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor 

child, Al.C.

Shannon L. Wallace of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney for minor 

child, Al.C.
2

Ling Harl of Harl Law Office, Ankeny, attorney and guardian ad litem for 

minor child, Ar.C.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
3

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights. We 

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

the mother’s parental rights. We find termination of the father’s parental rights is 

in the children’s best interests, application of an exception to termination is 

unwarranted, and it would not be in the children’s best interests to grant the father 

an extension of time. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s and 

father’s parental rights.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

C.C., father, and N.R., mother, are the parents of Al.C., born in 2014, and 

Ar.C., born in 2021. On August 29, 2022, Al.C., who was then eight years old, 

called 911 to report that her mother was unresponsive. When officers arrived, they 

found the father attempting to perform CPR on the mother. The officers believed 

the father was under the influence of a substance due to his erratic behavior. 

Officers saw heroin and methamphetamine in plain view in the home. Once 

resuscitated, the mother indicated that she had used heroin. The parents also had 

a history of domestic violence. 

The children were removed from parental custody and were initially placed 

with a paternal aunt. Concerns arose because there were reports the mother had 

unsupervised contact with the children. In December, the children were moved to

foster care.1 A hair test of Ar.C. was positive for cocaine, fentanyl, and THC. The 

1 At the time the children were moved from the paternal aunt’s home, workers from 

the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) smelled an odor of 

marijuana in the home.
4

mother acknowledged using crack cocaine and marijuana after the children’s 

removal.

In the meantime, in November, after eluding law enforcement officers, the 

father was found to have several baggies of heroin and methamphetamine in his 

vehicle. A blood test of the father was positive for cocaine and fentanyl. The father

was charged with eluding, possession of a controlled substance, and operating 

while under the influence. The father entered into a plea agreement and was 

placed on probation with the condition that he enter an in-patient substance-use 

program.

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

February 2023.2 The mother began an extended outpatient treatment program. 

The father was also in a substance-use program associated with his probation. On 

June 1, the court granted the parents a six-month extension to work on 

reunification efforts. The father was arrested at the end of the hearing for probation 

violations.

Subsequently, the father tested positive for methamphetamine, and he was 

discharged from the treatment facility. A warrant was issued for the father for 

probation violations arising from his positive drug tests and leaving treatment. He 

was arrested in Illinois and returned to Iowa. The mother tested positive for 

cocaine but denied using illegal substances. In August, the mother reported 

receiving threats from the father. She obtained a no-contact order. Despite this, 

2 There was a delay in the CINA adjudication due to questions about whether Iowa 

or Illinois had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 

Enforcement Act, Iowa Code chapter 598B (2022). Illinois declined jurisdiction of 

the case, and the proceedings continued in Iowa.
5

she let the father into the home. There was also a report that the mother was with 

the father in Illinois.

The State asked to have the extension of time shortened, and the court 

granted this request. On November 17, the State petitioned to terminate the 

parents’ rights. At the termination hearing, the court separately spoke to Al.C., 

who stated she wanted to return to her mother’s home. She stated she did not feel 

safe around her father. At times Al.C. refused to attend visits with the father. She 

also stated that she felt safe in the foster home.

Although the mother previously denied using cocaine in June, at the 

termination hearing she admitted using at that time. She stated she used cocaine 

with the father while he was on the run from active warrants for his arrest. She 

recalled a time when HHS came to the home and the father climbed out a window,

so he was not found there. The mother stated it was her intention to separate from 

the father. She did not ask for the return of her children at the time of the hearing 

but requested more time to work on reunification efforts.

The father testified that he was in jail and waiting to enter an in-patient 

substance-use program. The program was expected to take eight months to 

complete. The father asked for an extension of time to have the children returned 

to his custody. 

The HHS caseworker testified there were still concerns about substance 

use and domestic violence in the case. She stated the mother had not been honest 

with HHS about her use of illegal drugs or her contact with the father. The father 

continued to use illegal drugs. He did not engage in services for a time period
6

because he was on the run due to outstanding warrants. The caseworker also

testified HHS had identified relatives who were hoping to adopt the children. 

The district court terminated the parents’ rights under section 232.116(1)(f) 

for Al.C. and section 232.116(1)(h) for Ar.C. The court found termination of the 

parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests. The court declined to apply any 

of the exceptions to termination found in section 232.116(3). And the court found 

it would not be in the children’s best interests to grant another six-month extension 

of time. The mother and father each appeal the district court’s decision.

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).

In general, 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). First, we 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. Third, we consider whether any of the 

exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3) should be applied. Id. But when 

the parent does not raise a claim relating to any of the three steps, we do not 

address that step and instead limit our review to the specific claims presented. 
7

See id. at 40 (recognizing we do not consider a step the parent does not 

challenge).

III. Mother

The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 

termination of her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f)3 and (h).4 She claims 

the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence to show the children 

could not be returned to her custody, which corresponds to section 232.116(1)(f)(4) 

and (h)(4). She asserts that she is working on maintaining sobriety and 

establishing a life apart from the father.

“We will uphold an order terminating parental rights where there is clear and 

convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination.” In re T.S., 868 

3Section 232.116(1)(f) provides for termination of parental rights if the following 

have occurred:

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

(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of

assistance 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.

4Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination under the following circumstances:

(1) The child is three years of age or younger.

(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of 

assistance pursuant to section 232.96.

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

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

or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home 

has been less than thirty days.

(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child 

cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided 

in section 232.102 at the present time.
8

N.W.2d 425, 434 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). Section 232.116(1)(f)(4) and (h)(4) 

requires a showing by clear and convincing evidence that a child “could not be 

safely returned to the custody of [the child’s] parents.” In re S.O., 967 N.W.2d 198, 

206 (Iowa 2021). Under section 232.116(1)(f)(4) and (h)(4), a court considers 

whether a child can be returned to the parent at the time of the termination hearing. 

In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021).

At the termination hearing, the mother testified the children could be 

returned to her at that time, but she was not requesting they be returned 

immediately. The mother asked for an extension of time to allow the children to 

transition home. She stated it would not be in the children’s best interests to be 

returned at the time of the hearing because “I know I still need time to work on 

things.” 

We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show the 

children could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the 

termination hearing. As the mother herself recognized, she was not in a position 

to care for the children. The mother still needed to address the issues that led to 

the removal of the children—substance use and her relationship with the father. 

We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence to support the application of 

section 232.116(1)(f) and (h). We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental 

rights.

IV. Father

A. The father does not dispute the statutory grounds for termination of 

his parental rights. He asserts that termination was not in the children’s best 

interests and requests an extension of time for reunification efforts. He points out 
9

that he was scheduled to begin in-patient treatment shortly after the termination 

hearing. He states that once he completes treatment, he could be a valuable 

resource for the long-term nurturing and growth of the children.

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).” P.L., 778 N.W.2d 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 father has a long history of substance use and domestic violence. The 

father’s conduct during the CINA proceedings provides little hope that he could 

provide stability for the children or be able to meet their needs. The father 

continued to use illegal substances. While on probation, he absconded and spent 

time on the run while there were active warrants for his arrest. He did not address 

the concerns about domestic violence. He violated the order prohibiting him from 

having contact with the mother. We conclude termination of the father’s parental 

rights is in the children’s best interests.

B. The father claims the court should have applied an exception to 

termination. He contends the court could have elected not to terminate based on 

section 232.116(3)(a), which applies when “[a] relative has legal custody of the 

child.”

The exceptions to termination found “in section 232.116(3) are permissive, 

not mandatory.” In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 324 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). 
10

“The court may exercise its discretion in deciding whether to apply the factors in 

section 232.116(3) to save the parent-child relationship based on the unique 

circumstances of each case and the best interests of the children.” In re A.R., 932 

N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). “[O]nce the State has proven a ground for 

termination, the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an 

exception to termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) . . . .” In re A.S., 906 

N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). The children’s best interests remain our first 

consideration. Id. at 475.

The children were not in the custody of relatives at the time of the 

termination hearing; they were in foster care. The HHS worker testified there was 

a plan to place the children with relatives who lived out of state, but HHS had not 

yet received the necessary paperwork. As HHS retained custody, 

section 232.116(3)(a) is not applicable.

C. The father requested a six-month extension to work on reunification 

with the children. He notes that he was starting an in-patient treatment program 

soon after the termination hearing. He states that once he completes treatment 

he can care for the children.

A six-month extension of time may be granted under sections 232.104(2)(b) 

and 232.117(5) if parental rights are not terminated following a termination hearing. 

In re D.P., No. 21-0884, 2021 WL 3891722, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2021). 

An extension of time may be granted if the court “determin[es] that the need for 

removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the 

additional six-month period.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) 

(quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)). “The judge considering [the extension] 
11

should however constantly bear in mind that, if the plan fails, all extended time 

must be subtracted from an already shortened life for the children in a better 

home.” Id. (citation omitted). And to grant an additional six months, the court must 

identify “specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes” that provide 

a basis for determining “that the need for removal of the child from the child’s home 

will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” In re S.H.-M.,

No. 23-1706, 2023 WL 8806153, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2023).

On this issue, the district court stated:

The Court has considered granting the parents another six 

month extension. The Court determines this is not appropriate. 

During the last extension, the father absconded from probation and 

was charged with a new crime—domestic abuse assault. The 

mother continued in her toxic, domestic violence relationship with the 

father and used cocaine. The mother repeatedly lied to all 

professionals and the Court re[garding] this use, despite the positive 

drug screen for cocaine. It was not until the mother testified at the 

termination trial, that she finally said she had used cocaine. The 

children need and deserve permanency. Termination is in the 

children’s best interest.

We conclude the district court properly denied the father’s request for an 

extension of time. The evidence shows it was unlikely the children could be 

returned to the father within six months. 

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights and the father’s 

parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.