IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0088

Filed March 22, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF K.G.,

Minor child,

V.G., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District 

Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. 

AFFIRMED. 

Nancy A.S. Trotter, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary K. Wickman, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Erin M. Hardisty of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for 

minor child.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2

VOGEL, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. 

Finding the State carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, 

we affirm.1 

The child, K.G., born 2015, came to the attention of the Iowa Department 

of Human Services (DHS) after testing positive for oxycodone at birth. The 

mother admitted to using methamphetamine and oxycodone during the 

pregnancy. K.G. was removed in April 2015 and placed in foster care. In May, 

K.G. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance. 

After a termination hearing held over multiple days, the district court 

terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) 

(2016). The mother appeals, asserting the State failed to establish the grounds 

for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination was not in the best 

interests of the child, and exceptions to termination are present. 

We review the termination of parental rights de novo, giving weight to the 

factual findings of the district court while not being bound by them. In re A.M., 

843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). 

The record establishes the mother has failed to abstain from the use of 

illegal substances and the child cannot be safely returned to her care without the 

risk of adjudicatory harm. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4). Initially, the 

mother was open to services offered by DHS, though she tested positive for 

illegal substances while receiving substance-abuse treatment in the months 

 

1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated, but after initially appealing, he later 

dismissed his appeal. 
3

following removal. In October 2015, the mother became resistant to services 

after admitting to taking Percocet without a prescription. Throughout late 2015 

and early 2016, the mother missed numerous drug screens and scheduled 

substance-abuse evaluations. The mother began sporadically missing visitation 

appointments, missed medical appointments for the child, and became 

inconsistent in her contact with DHS and the child’s foster parents. She also lost 

her job and was not maintaining a permanent home. In September 2016, the 

mother again tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. Based 

on the record before us, we agree with the district court’s conclusion the State 

proved by clear and convincing evidence the children could not be safely 

returned to the mother. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4). 

The mother also claims termination was not in the best interests of the 

child under Iowa Code section 232.116(2). In determining termination was in the 

best interests of the child, the district court stated: “[The child] is approximately 

20 months old. The Child Welfare case has been open his entire life. It needs to 

end. He needs certainty and permanency and safety and stability that cannot be 

provided by his biological parents.” “[W]e 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.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010). We agree it was 

in the child’s best interest to terminate the mother’s parental rights and nothing 

militated against termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2), (3). 

We agree the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the mother’s

parental rights should be terminated under section 232.116(1)(h). We also agree
4

with the district court that termination is in the child’s best interests. We therefore

affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.