IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-1564

Filed February 7, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.,

Minor Child,

H.B. and L.B., Guardians,

Petitioners-Appellees,

B.S., Mother,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Crystal S. Cronk, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code 

chapter 600A (2017). AFFIRMED.

Melissa A. Norman of Lamping, Schlegel & Salazar, L.L.P., Washington, for 

appellant.

Dustin D. Hite of Heslinga, Dixon & Hite, Oskaloosa, for appellees.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
2

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code 

chapter 600A (2017). She argues there is insufficient evidence to show she 

abandoned the child, she failed to provide support for the child, and termination is 

in the child’s best interest. She also argues the juvenile court violated her right to 

due process by denying her a continuance of the termination hearing.

The child was ten years old when she came to live with a maternal aunt and 

uncle, who were later appointed the child’s legal guardians. The mother, who has 

a history of substance abuse and criminal activity, had little contact with the child 

thereafter. After a year and a half, the aunt and uncle filed a petition under chapter 

600A, seeking to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The juvenile court entered 

an order terminating the mother’s parental rights after a hearing. The mother 

appeals. 

We review termination proceedings under chapter 600A de novo. See In re 

R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998). We give weight to the juvenile court’s 

fact findings, especially those regarding witness credibility, though we are not 

bound by them. See id. As in all termination proceedings, our primary concern is 

the child’s best interest. See Iowa Code § 600A.1; R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d at 601.

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

Code section 600A.8(3)(b). Under section 600A.8(3)(b), a parent is deemed to

have abandoned a child six months of age or older unless the parent maintains 

substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child as 

demonstrated by contribution toward support of the child of a 

reasonable amount, according to the parent’s means, and as 

demonstrated by any of the following:
3

(1) Visiting the child at least monthly when physically and 

financially able to do so and when not prevented from doing so by 

the person having lawful custody of the child.

(2) Regular communication with the child or with the person 

having the care or custody of the child, when physically and 

financially unable to visit the child or when prevented from visiting 

the child by the person having lawful custody of the child.

(3) Openly living with the child for a period of six months within 

the one-year period immediately preceding the termination of 

parental rights hearing and during that period openly holding himself 

or herself out to be the parent of the child.

The mother argues there is insufficient evidence to show she abandoned the child, 

claiming the aunt and uncle prevented her from visiting the child. The record does 

not bear out her claim. The mother did not provide the aunt and uncle with contact 

information or her address. Despite the mother’s ability to contact the child at the 

aunt and uncle’s home, she failed to do so and provided no financial support to the 

child once in the aunt and uncle’s care. The grounds for termination under section 

600A.8(3)(b) have been proved.

In order to terminate parental rights, the evidence must show termination is 

in the child’s best interest. See R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d at 602. In determining a child’s 

best interest, we look to the best-interest framework described in Iowa Code 

section 232.116, see In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687, 690-91 (Iowa 2010), which 

requires that 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). Here, the record shows the child was harmed by physical abuse 

and exposure to drugs in the mother’s care. The mother was also unable to 

provide for the child’s needs when the child was in her custody. Conversely, the 

child is doing well in the care of the aunt and uncle, where she wishes to remain. 
4

The aunt and uncle are seeking to adopt the child in order to provide a permanent 

home and ensure the child receives the stability and safety she needs. 

Termination is in the child’s best interest. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 

(Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (noting the “defining elements in a 

child’s best interest” are the child’s safety and “need for a permanent home”). 

The mother also challenges the juvenile court’s refusal to continue the 

termination hearing. One day before the scheduled hearing date, the mother 

requested a continuance to allow her attorney to prepare “additional witnesses who 

may offer pertinent information to the court” on the mother’s behalf. When the 

mother failed to attend the hearing due to “transportation difficulties,” her attorney 

renewed the motion. The juvenile court denied the continuance. We first note that 

although the mother requested a continuance below, she did not raise the specific 

claim she asserts on appeal—that the denial of a continuance violated her due 

process rights—and accordingly, her claim is not preserved. See In re A.M., 856 

N.W.2d 365, 371 n. 5 (Iowa 2014) (declining to reach a constitutional claim that 

was not raised before the district court); see also In re J.G., No. 15–1755, 2016 

WL 363747, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016). Even if error had been preserved, 

her claim would fail; the mother received adequate notice of the petition, a hearing, 

representation, and the opportunity to provide testimony, and was thereby afforded 

due process. See In re J.S., 470 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa 1991) (“Where a parent 

receives notice of the petition and hearing, is represented by counsel, counsel is 

present at the termination hearing, and the parent has an opportunity to present 

testimony by deposition, we cannot say the parent has been deprived of 

fundamental fairness.”).
5

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa 

Code section 600A.8(3)(b).

AFFIRMED.