IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0444

Filed May 11, 2016

IN THE INTEREST OF J.W., S.W., Z.W., AND T.W.,

Minor Children,

L.C., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, 

Associate Juvenile Judge.

A mother challenges the termination of her parental rights to four children. 

AFFIRMED.

Zachary S. Hindman of Mayne, Arneson, Hindman, Hisey & Daane, Sioux 

City, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Molly Vakulskas Joly of Vakulskas Law Firm P.C., Sioux City, for minor 

children.

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

TABOR, Judge.

The children impacted by this appeal—J.W., S.W., Z.W. and T.W.—range 

in age from one to six years. Their mother challenges the juvenile court’s order

terminating her parental rights. She asks for an additional six months to work 

toward reunification of the family and contends severing her rights now is not in 

the children’s best interests. In the fall of 2015, the juvenile court granted the 

mother additional time to resolve the conditions that led to removal of the 

children. Given the mother’s substance abuse, homelessness, and mentalhealth history, we do not find that a second chance at reunification would benefit 

the children.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

The juvenile court opened its findings of facts by noting the mother and 

father1“are no strangers to this court.” The court described the circumstances 

leading to the April 2009 termination of parental rights to their older son, B.W., 

due to the parents’ involvement with illegal drugs and drug users. The court 

further found that between May 2009 and July 2014, the parents and their 

growing family2“roamed from place to place, living with multiple people who used 

or sold drugs.”

In July 2014 and again in June 2015, the family faced investigations by the 

child protective services unit of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). 

On the first occasion, the father admitted using methamphetamine. On the 

 

1 The court order at issue also terminated the father’s parental rights to J.W., S.W., Z.W. 

and T.W, but he is not a party to this appeal.

2 T.W. was born in 2009, Z.W. was born in 2010, S.W. was born in 2013, and J.W. was 

born in 2014.
3

second occasion, the young children were allowed to play outside unsupervised. 

The house where the family was living with several unrelated adults had no 

electricity or running water for more than one month. Because the living 

conditions were unsanitary and unsafe, the DHS removed the four children. The 

court adjudicated them as children in need of assistance (CINA) in July 2015.

The Family Safety Risk and Permanency (FSRP) worker tried to help the 

mother apply for housing assistance, but the mother did not follow up. From July 

to December 2015, she remained homeless, staying with random acquaintances. 

In addition to housing challenges, the mother struggled with mental-health and 

substance-abuse issues. She had been diagnosed with attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder. She also received Social 

Security disability for her cognitive disability. In addition, the mother abused 

alcohol and methamphetamine during the CINA case.

Following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court issued an order on 

October 1, 2015, granting the parents additional time to work toward 

reunification. The court was candid about the parents’ less-than-diligent efforts 

to resolve the problems that led to their children’s removal, commenting they 

“have shown no progress since this family came to the court’s attention, except 

for their most recent efforts to participate in chemical-dependency evaluations

just a week ago.” The court admonished the parents to follow through “100% 

with expectations, requests, and services” as established by the DHS. But even 

after that reprieve, the mother did not commit to regular participation in services 

nor did she consistently attend visitation, much to the disappointment of the 

children. 
4

Some of the children have special needs. T.W. is taking medication for 

ADHD. Both T.W. and Z.W. receive therapy to address negative behaviors. 

J.W. also started to act out by pulling out his hair, as well as kicking and hitting 

when he is upset.

On December 30, 2015, the State filed a petition for termination of 

parental rights. About three weeks after that petition was filed, the mother 

obtained a substance-abuse evaluation. She told the evaluator her drug of 

choice was methamphetamine and her last use was in November 2015. She 

also reported abusing alcohol. She told the evaluator she was motivated to 

change her substance-abuse patterns because she wanted to “get her children 

back from DHS.” The evaluator opined she was in the “pre-contemplation stage 

of change.” 

On February 26, 2016, the court held a termination hearing during which 

the DHS worker and the mother provided testimony. The worker described the 

visitations as “very chaotic” and opined the mother needed to improve her 

parenting skills. The mother testified she was not able to take the antipsychotic 

medication prescribed to her because she recently learned she was pregnant 

with her sixth child. The mother also acknowledged she was homeless at the 

time of the hearing. The mother asked for six additional months to look for 

housing options, and testified: “I believe I can take care of my kids.” At the close 

of the hearing, the children’s guardian ad litem endorsed the State’s petition in 

support of termination.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights based on Iowa 

Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (g), (h) and (l). The mother timely filed an appeal.
5

II. Standard of Review

We review termination orders de novo. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 

(Iowa 2014). De novo review requires us to evaluate both the facts and the law, 

and then adjudicate rights anew. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). 

We are not bound by the juvenile court's findings of fact, but we give them 

weight, especially when assessing witness credibility. A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 110.

III. Analysis

On appeal, the mother does not challenge the statutory grounds for 

termination. In the absence of a challenge, the grounds for termination remain 

undisturbed. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). 

Additional Six Months. The mother instead seeks to delay permanency 

for an additional six months under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b).3 She 

alleges each of the concerns noted by the juvenile court in support of the 

termination order “are likely to be remedied in an additional six months such that 

the children will at that time be able to return to [her] care.” Specifically, she 

asserts she will be able to obtain stable and appropriate housing, will address her 

substance-abuse and mental-health problems, will comply with visitation, and will 

improve her parenting skills. After reviewing the record anew, we find the 

mother’s ambitious agenda is unrealistic.

 

3 Section 232.104(2)(b) reads in relevant part:

[T]o continue placement of the child for an additional six months at which 

time the court shall hold a hearing to consider modification of its 

permanency order. An order entered under this paragraph shall 

enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral 

changes which comprise the basis for the determination that the need for 

removal of the child from the child's home will no longer exist at the end of 

the additional six-month period.
6

A parent’s past performance gives us a glimpse into what we can expect 

for the quality of future care that parent is able and willing to provide the children. 

See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000). The mother’s past 

performance in this case is not reassuring. She has only stepped up her efforts 

to obtain treatment for substance abuse on the eve of termination. She has 

untreated mental-health difficulties and has been unable to secure stable 

housing. The juvenile court’s insistence on full compliance with DHS services 

after the October 2015 extension did not impress upon her the urgency of the 

situation. 

The juvenile court reasoned as follows:

There are no further services which can be provided that will 

correct the circumstances which led to the adjudication of their 

children. [The parents] continue to lack the ability or willingness to 

respond to services and an additional period of rehabilitation would 

not correct the situation. The children are in need of permanency 

now, not at some point in the future. They have waited long enough 

for their parents to make them a priority. To grant an additional six 

months is not in the children’s best interests.

We concur in that rationale. 

Best Interests of the Children. The mother argues, even if she is not 

granted an additional six months to reunify with her four children, it is in their best 

interests for her to retain her parental rights. We disagree.

In deciding what is in the best interests of J.W., S.W., Z.W. and T.W., we 

give primary consideration to their safety; the best placement for furthering their

long-term nurturing and growth; and to their physical, mental, and emotional 

condition and needs. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). We note the record showed 
7

the children were experiencing negative behaviors tied to the uncertainty of their 

ongoing interactions with their parents.

The juvenile court held that the children’s long-term growth would be best 

served by terminating “the parent-child relationships so that they will have the 

opportunity to grow and mature in a safe, healthy and stimulating environment.” 

The court determined the children were adoptable and had made great strides 

while in family foster care. The juvenile court concluded: “These children 

deserve the opportunity to establish permanency and stability in their lives. It is 

in the children’s best interests that the impediments to their forming new family 

relationships should be swept away.”

After reviewing the entire record, we agree with the juvenile court’s cogent 

sentiments.

AFFIRMED.