IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1429

Filed November 17, 2022

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.-G. and A.M.,

Minor Children,

P.M., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, 

Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED. 

Joseph G. Martin, Cedar Falls, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Kimberly S. Lange of the Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo, attorney and 

guardian ad litem.

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

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She claims 

termination is not in the best interests of the children and asks for a six-month 

extension. We find termination is in the children’s best interests. Additionally, a 

six-month extension in not warranted on the facts in this record. We affirm.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

The instant proceedings began in August 2020 after the Department of 

Health and Human Services (DHHS) became aware of reports of the mother’s 

failure to safely supervise her children, as well as the mother’s drug use.1 A.M.-

G., age three-and-a-half, and A.M., age two-and-a-half, were removed from their 

mother’s custody and placed with their maternal grandmother, where they have 

remained for the duration of the case. 

The mother was instructed to complete substance-abuse treatment, comply 

with drug testing, complete a mental-health evaluation and fulfill any recommended 

treatment, participate in Family Centered Services (FCS) and the SafeCare 

curriculum, and consistently attend visits with the children. Little progress was

made on any of these goals. The mother completed a substance-abuse evaluation 

in July 2021, which diagnosed her with cocaine use disorder—severe, cannabis 

use disorder—severe, and opiate use disorder—severe, in sustained remission. 

However, the mother did not complete any substance-abuse treatment. Nor did

she engage in mental-health treatment, despite self-disclosing to DHHS that she 

suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Visitation was also problematic 

1 The mother was involved with DHHS in 2018 because of similar concerns. 
3

for the mother. Providers reported that the mother easily grew frustrated with the 

children, failed to discipline them, failed to properly supervise them, and left 

numerous hazards around the house, including loose pills and scissors within the 

children’s reach. The mother completed only ten drug tests over eighteen months, 

one of which was positive for cocaine and several of which were indicative of nonhuman urine, resulting in presumptive positive results. 

The State petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights in December 

2021. Following a hearing, the court granted the mother a six-month extension, 

noting the mother’s spirited promises to improve her situation. Still the mother 

struggled to make progress. Despite efforts to make visits more available, the 

mother only participated in about thirteen of twenty-six visits since February. 

Similarly, she only participated in five of thirteen FCS meetings and three of six 

SafeCare classes. She tested positive for cocaine on May 28, 2022, the day after 

her most recent child’s birth, and admitted to drug use during the pregnancy.2 

Hospital staff indicated she was not compliant with the mental-health medication 

she purported to be taking at the time.

The mother blames much of her continued struggles with sobriety and visits 

on health problems she encountered since the February hearing, some of which 

related to her pregnancy. While DHHS did not doubt the existence of some 

medical issues, the mother never signed medical releases so DHHS could verify 

the restrictions she claimed were in place. Her visits were held virtually in April 

and May to accommodate the mother being placed on bedrest. Despite those 

2 The new baby is not part of the instant appeal. 
4

accommodations, the mother still attended only five of fourteen offered visits during 

those months. She completed a new substance-abuse evaluation on June 6, 

which recommended inpatient treatment.3 The mother was referred to a facility at 

the same time. 

A second termination hearing was held June 9. After hearing testimony 

from the DHHS caseworker and the mother, the juvenile court terminated the 

mother’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2022). The 

mother subsequently moved to reconsider, which the court denied. The mother 

appeals.4 

II. Standard of Review

We review the termination of parental rights de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 

30, 40 (Iowa 2010). We generally review such proceedings using a three-step 

analysis. Id. at 39. However, the mother does not contest that there is a statutory 

ground for termination or whether permissive exceptions apply that could prevent 

termination. See id. Thus, we need not discuss those steps. Id. at 40. 

III. Discussion

The mother claims termination is not in the best interests of the children. 

When considering the best interests of the children, 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 condition and 

needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). 

3 The mother signed a limited release of information, informing DHS about the 

occurrence of the evaluation and the recommendation for treatment, but omitting 

her diagnoses. 

4 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 
5

We determine termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s 

best interests. The mother has made little discernable progress over the course 

of the case. She has failed to complete substance-abuse treatment and has not

participated in mental-health treatment. Despite self-reporting she suffers from 

bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, she was non-compliant with her medication 

around the time of her most-recent child’s birth. The mother tested positive for 

cocaine about two weeks prior to the termination hearing, which indicated use 

while she was pregnant. The mother’s substance-abuse and mental-health 

present a real danger to the children. She has continued to struggle supervising 

the children during visits.

The children have been removed from the mother’s custody for about 

twenty months—a substantial portion of their young lives. The maternal 

grandmother, the current placement, is a licensed adoptive home. See In re A.M., 

843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014). Waiting for the mother to resolve her 

substance-abuse issues is not in the children’s best interests. See 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 that someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a 

stable home for the child.”).

The mother also requests a six-month extension, contending she could 

enter inpatient treatment without harming the children by continuing their 

placement with their maternal grandmother. She also blames the lack of progress 

she has made thus far on health issues. Juvenile courts may grant a six-month 

extension to proceedings when there is a basis to believe “the need for removal of 
6

the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional sixmonth period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). 

The juvenile court properly denied the six-month extension. First, as noted 

above, the mother has made very little progress over the proceeding twenty 

months. While she blames medical issues have hindered her progress, those 

issues only arose after the February 2022 hearing in which the court granted a sixmonth extension. She cannot explain her lack of participation or progress prior to

that hearing. And DHHS made accommodations for those health issues, allowing 

her to do virtual visits and offering at-home drug testing. The mother failed to 

meaningfully utilize those options. 

Similarly, while the mother contends she will enter inpatient treatment soon, 

she has failed to maintain her sobriety for the past four years of DHHS involvement. 

She continued her drug use following the discovery of her most recent pregnancy 

and the February hearing that provided a six-month extension. See In re A.B., 815 

N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012) (explaining that a parent’s past conduct is indicative 

of future behavior). Given her extensive history of non-participation in services, 

her assurance to attend inpatient treatment at the time of the termination hearing 

rings hollow. The mother had ample time to tackle her substance abuse issues, 

but failed to do so. The juvenile court quoted the DHHS caseworker as aptly 

describing the issue:

[The mother] has spent a great deal of energy trying to prove 

her excuses for complying with treatment and testing. It remains very 

difficult to believe [her] as she has provided many explanations. 

When asked to provide facts and documentation she is not able to 

do so. 
7

The mother’s assurances notwithstanding, nothing in the record suggests 

the children could be safely returned to her custody in the next six-months. A sixmonth extension is not appropriate in this case.

AFFIRMED.