IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-0220

Filed April 4, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF E.S.,

Minor Child,

A.S., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 

2017. AFFIRMED.

Jessica A. Millage of Flanagan Law Group, P.L.L.C., Des Moines, for 

appellant mother.

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

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Brent M. Pattison of Drake Legal Clinic, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for 

minor children.

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

VAITHESWARAN, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 

2017. She contends (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support 

the grounds for termination cited by the district court, (2) termination was not in the 

child’s best interests, and (3) the “relative exception” should apply. 

I. Grounds for Termination

The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa 

Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (h) (2017). We may affirm if we find either ground 

was supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 

707 (Iowa 2010). We will focus on section 232.116(1)(h).

This provision requires proof a child three years of age or younger has been 

adjudicated in need of assistance, has been removed from the parent for at least 

six of the last twelve months, and cannot be returned to the parent’s custody. Iowa 

Code § 232.116(1)(h).

The mother has a history of substance abuse. Over the years, she abused 

alcohol, marijuana, sleeping pills, Adderall, and muscle relaxers. In time, she 

transitioned to methamphetamine. By 2016, her parental rights to an older child 

had been terminated “due to untreated substance abuse issues.” 

This child was born with amphetamines in her system. With the mother’s 

consent, the district court ordered the child removed from her custody. The 

department of human services placed the child with her maternal grandfather and 

step-grandmother, as requested by the mother. The child remained in their care 

throughout the proceedings.
3

The mother stipulated to adjudication of the child as a child in need of 

assistance. She began inpatient drug treatment after being diagnosed with severe 

amphetamine use disorder. She struggled to attend programming. After five 

months, she had yet to obtain a sponsor. During her sixth month at the facility, the 

mother admitted to relapsing on methamphetamine. At her behest, she was 

placed on a thirty-day discharge plan, which was accelerated after she tested 

positive for methamphetamine again.

Although the mother obtained housing and employment following her 

discharge, there was no indication her methamphetamine usage abated. She 

declined the department’s request to wear a drug patch, failed to reengage in drug 

treatment services, and lived with a roommate who had substance abuse issues. 

The district court concluded, “[T]o return [the child] to either [parent’s] custody 

would subject [the child] to adjudicatory harm.” We concur in the court’s 

assessment. On our de novo review, we conclude the State proved termination 

was warranted under section 232.116(1)(h). In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 776 (Iowa 

2012) (noting “an unresolved, severe, and chronic drug addiction can render a 

parent unfit to raise children”). 

II. Best Interests of the Child

The mother argues termination was not in the child’s best interests because 

of the bond she shared with her child. Our best interest analysis generally is made 

under the authority of Iowa Code section 232.116(2), which requires the court to 

“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.” But our statute also 
4

contains an exception to termination based on “the closeness of the parent-child 

relationship.” See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). 

There is no question the mother’s visits with the child went well. Before she 

relapsed, she even graduated from supervised to semi-supervised visits. But the 

child was out of her care from birth forward, leaving doubts about the depth of the 

child’s bond with the mother, and the mother’s untreated substance abuse 

impeded her ability to keep the child safe. See In re P.L, 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 

2010) (noting father could not “maintain a safe environment for his child while

attempting to parent his child”). Under these circumstances, we conclude 

termination was in the child’s best interests irrespective of the bond the mother 

had with the child. And an exception to termination based on the closeness of the 

parent-child bond was not warranted.

III. Relative Exception

Under section 232.116(3)(a), “[t]he court need not terminate the relationship 

between the parent and child if . . . [a] relative has legal custody of the child.” 

“[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)(a).” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). 

The mother failed to satisfy her burden. She did not testify, and neither did 

the grandparents. See id. at 476 (finding mother failed to show grandparents’

temporary custody of the child should preclude termination where neither the 

mother nor the grandparents testified). Although the department case manager 

testified the child was doing well in the grandparents’ care, she recommended 

termination and adoption in lieu of a guardianship. The guardian ad litem also 
5

recommended termination. See id. (giving weight to the recommendations of the 

caseworker and guardian ad litem). We conclude the relative exception to 

termination was not proven.

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.

AFFIRMED.