IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1237

Filed November 2, 2022

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., I.M., and T.L.,

Minor Children

A.M., Mother

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, 

District Associate Judge.

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

Andrew J.C. Meyer of Newbrough Law Firm, L.L.P., Ames, for appellant 

mother.

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

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Shannon M. Leighty of the Public Defender’s Office Nevada, Iowa, attorney 

and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, claiming the State 

did not prove a statutory ground for termination. We find clear and convincing 

evidence supports termination. We affirm. 

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

The mother and her three children1 came to the attention of the Department 

of Human Services (DHS) in August 2020 following reports of the mother’s 

substance abuse, namely methamphetamine and marijuana.2 After an at-home 

visit, additional concerns were raised about the unsanitary conditions of the home. 

Those concerns, as well as issues with the mother’s mental health and inadequate 

supervision of the children, were the same as those found in the two-prior child-inneed-of-assistance (CINA) cases the mother was involved in, beginning in 2010. 

She has accumulated nearly four-dozen child abuse assessments, a significant 

portion of which were founded. The last CINA case concluded in 2018. 

The children—A.M., age eight, I.M., age eleven, and T.L., age sixteen, were 

removed from the mother’s custody in August 2020. All three children were 

adjudicated CINA on October 22, 2020, pursuant to Iowa Code section 

232.2(6)(c)(2) (2020). In part, due to the mother’s assurances to address the 

issues underpinning the adjudication, the children were returned to the mother’s 

custody at the time of adjudication. However, A.M. and I.M. were removed from 

the home again in April 2021 due to the mother’s drug use, the unsanitary 

1 Another child, E.M., was involved in these proceedings until reaching the age of 

eighteen prior to the termination hearing. 

2 At the time of the termination proceedings, the mother was 43 years old. She 

testified she first used methamphetamine with her own mother at age 19. 
3

conditions in the home, and allegations that the mother was withholding food from 

the children. T.L., the eldest child, was subsequently removed in June 2021 due 

to the mother’s continued drug use. 3

The children have remained in their pre-adoptive placements for the 

remainder of the case.4 All have exhibited strong growth behaviorally and 

academically since their removal. I.M. and T.L. have indicated opposition to 

returning to their mother’s custody. The children currently visit their mother once 

a week for two hours.5 The visits have remained fully supervised at the mother’s 

home for the duration of the case. 

The mother testified at trial to the variety of services she is currently 

engaged in, including therapy and attending AA. She has not tested positive for 

methamphetamine since August 2021. However, she failed to complete a drug 

test just a few days before trial, presumed to be positive for drug use. She also 

continues to use marijuana. She obtained a medical cannabinoid card, which 

permits her to use cannabinoid oil. However, she admitted at trial that she still 

uses non-oil marijuana that she obtains illegally, with such use occurring as 

recently as two days before trial. The physical condition of her home was debated 

at trial, although it is clear the home is in a better condition when she has outside 

support cleaning it. 

3 T.L. has been subject to five removals from parental custody, and A.M. and I.M. 

have each been subject to four removals. 

4 The children are in three separate placements. 

5 All three children are scheduled to have visitation together, although I.M. 

generally resists going to visits and only attends one or two a month. 
4

The State filed petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights to all three 

children on March 23, 2022. The hearing was held in June 2022. Following the 

hearing, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code 

section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2022).

6

 The mother appeals. 

II. Standard of Review

We review the termination of parental rights de novo. In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 

162, 168 (Iowa 2021). We are not bound by the juvenile court’s factual findings, 

but we give them weight, particularly for credibility assessments. Id. Our 

fundamental concern is the best interests of the children. Id. 

We generally use a three-step analysis to review the termination of parental 

rights. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). However, because the 

mother only contests the statutory grounds for termination, we need not consider 

the second and third steps. Se id. at 40.

III. Discussion 

The mother claims the court should not have terminated her parental rights 

because the State did not prove a statutory ground for termination. The mother’s 

rights were terminated under section 232.116(1)(e) and (f). “When the juvenile 

court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm 

the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find supported by the record.” In re 

A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We find termination was proper under 

section 232.116(1)(f).7

6 The court also terminated the parental rights to the children for their three fathers. 

None of the fathers appeal.

7 The section permits the court to terminate the parent-child relationship when all 

the following are found: 
5

The mother only contests the last element of that section—that the children 

could not be returned to her custody at the present time. Under this section, 

termination is proper if the children could not be returned home without exposing 

them to further adjudicatory harm. See In re K.S., No. 16-1258, 2016 WL 5485103, 

at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 28. 2016); cf. In re T.W., No. 20-0145, 2020 WL 

1881115, at *1-2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2020) (explaining that the proper standard 

is whether the children can be “safely returned”). “At the present time” means at 

the time of the termination hearing. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). 

The mother points to several factors indicating the children could return 

home safely. First, she highlights her progress in therapy and consistent 

attendance and support network from AA. She also submitted photographs of her 

home, which is cleaner than in the past. She indicated the most important 

differences between her now and from the prior CINA proceedings are: (1) her 

medical cannabinoid card and (2) she has “a higher power now.”

Despite the mother’s purported successes, we find clear and convincing 

evidence establishes the children cannot be safely returned at the present time. 

First, testimony was consistent at trial that the mother’s home is not nearly as clean 

as her photographic exhibits suggest. Additionally, the house only is cleaned or 

(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.
6

remains clean when the mother has outside help. She is not capable of 

maintaining sanitary conditions on her own. Second, the mother testified that she 

has engaged in therapy and AA for over two decades with minimal success. It is 

apparent from the record before us that the mother finds success while DHS is 

involved, then regresses once the case is closed. 

The mother’s answer to substance abuse involving marijuana—her selfprofessed drug of choice—was to obtain a medical cannabinoid card. But the 

mother is not complying with the restrictions of that card. For instance, she 

admitted at trial that she smoked marijuana that she obtained illegally just two days 

before trial. She also recently purchased a grinder despite the fact that 

cannabinoid cards only permit the use of cannabinoid oil. And the mother failed to 

participate in a drug test a few days before trial, a presumptive positive result. 

We also highlight several other factor’s weighing into our decision. The 

district court expressly found the mother was not credible, calling into question the 

progress she contends she has made. Those concerns are heightened due to the 

very long tenure of her involvement with DHS and the persistence of the same 

issues throughout that involvement. Additionally, the mother conceded that she 

would need DHS to stay involved following the case if she regained custody 

because she needs consistent encouragement to prevent regressing to her old 

ways. And she admitted she could only take one of the children back at the time 

of trial. The children cannot safely be returned to the mother at the present time. 

AFFIRMED.