IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-0636

Filed July 21, 2021

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.,

Minor Child,

J.B., Father,

Appellant,

N.M., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, 

Associate Juvenile Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental 

rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. 

Bridget L. Goldbeck of Hughes & Trannel, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant 

father.

Taryn McCarthy of Clemens, Walters, Conlon, Runde & Hiatt, L.L.P., 

Dubuque, for appellant mother.

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

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Kristy Hefel, Dubuque, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

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

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental 

rights. The parents individually contend termination is not in the best interest of 

their child and an extension of time for reunification efforts should be granted. The 

mother also argues insufficient evidence exists in the record to terminate her 

parental rights on the grounds relied upon by the juvenile court. We conclude 

termination of the mother and father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests, 

a six-month extension is not warranted for either parent, and clear and convincing

evidence supports termination of the mother’s parental rights on a statutory ground 

relied upon by the juvenile court. Accordingly, we affirm. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings 

N.M., mother, and J.B., father, are the parents of L.M., born in 2020. L.M. 

initially came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) at 

birth in January 2020 when she was born with an illegal substance in her system.

L.M., born at thirty-seven weeks gestation, weighed three pounds, fifteen ounces 

at birth. A founded child-abuse assessment for the presence of illegal drugs in the 

child was entered against the mother. Court involvement was not requested as 

part of the assessment. 

L.M. again came to the attention of DHS after six-month-old L.M. presented 

in the emergency room for injuries the mother reported were received as a result 

of a fifteen-inch fall from a couch onto carpet. Following a medical examination 

and discovery of retinal hemorrhaging and a subdural hematoma, L.M. was 

transferred to the University of Iowa, where medical professionals determined the 

mother’s explanation for the injuries could not account for the severity of the 
3

injuries. The University of Iowa reported L.M. had approximately fifty discreet 

hemorrhages in multiple layers of the left eye, with the most likely cause being

trauma. The exam also noted a traumatic subdural hemorrhage with a loss of 

consciousness in an unspecified duration. L.M. was reported to have both acute 

and resolving brain bleeds. A child-abuse assessment was founded for physical 

abuse, denial of critical care, and failure to provide proper supervision, listing the 

mother as the perpetrator of abuse. Upon discharge from the hospital, L.M. 

remained in the custody of her mother pursuant to a safety plan that included the 

mother participating in family preservation services and full-time supervision of the 

mother’s care of L.M. by a relative.

During the abuse assessment, the maternal grandmother reported that the 

mother had been consuming alcohol and Xanax, and because the maternal 

grandmother had to work, she left L.M. in the sole care of the baby’s mother, 

contrary to the safety plan. L.M. was removed from parental custody on July 31, 

2020, due to the mother’s failure to comply with the safety plan. The mother tested 

positive for methamphetamine and marijuana on August 20. L.M. was adjudicated 

a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) on September 21, pursuant to Iowa Code 

section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2020). The child has remained in the custody 

of DHS for relative placement since removal.1

Citing in part a lack of parental progress, the State filed a petition on 

February 23, 2021, requesting termination of the parents’ rights. At the termination 

 

1 This relative has care of another child of the mother, although it does not appear 

from the record before this court that the mother’s parental rights have been 

terminated to this child, who was approximately nine years of age at the birth of 

L.M. 
4

hearing on March 31, concerns remained regarding the mother’s substance abuse 

and mental health. The mother continued to assert the cause of L.M.’s injuries

was a roll-off from a couch. The father did not have an approved home study, had 

recently entered guilty pleas to substance-related charges, and was awaiting 

sentencing. 

The court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code section 

232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2021). The parents’ request for an extension of time for 

reunification efforts was denied. The court found termination was in the child’s 

best interest and declined to apply any expectations to the termination. Both the 

mother and father timely appealed.

II. Standard of Review 

Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 

764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove grounds for termination by clear and 

convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear and 

convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to the 

correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary 

concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 

2014).

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

The mother argues insufficient evidence exists to support termination of her 

parental rights on any grounds relied on by the juvenile court. When the court 

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

district court’s order on any ground we find supported by the record. A.B., 815 

N.W.2d at 774. For purposes of the mother’s challenge, we focus on the
5

termination of the mother’s rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h). “We consider 

whether the children could be returned to the parent’s care at the time of the 

termination hearing.” In re M.M., No. 20-0058, 2020 WL 1310254, at *4 (Iowa Ct. 

App. Mar. 18, 2020) (citing In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 224 (Iowa 2016)).

Section 232.116(1)(h) requires: (1) that the child is three years old or 

younger; (2) has been adjudicated as a CINA; (3) the child has been removed from 

the parents’ care for at least six of the last twelve months, or for the last six 

consecutive months with any trial period at home being less than thirty days; and 

(4) that there is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to 

the custody of the child’s parents at the present time. L.M. was born in January 

2020. She was approximately fourteen months old at the time of the termination 

hearing. She was adjudicated a CINA. At the time of the termination hearing, L.M. 

had been removed from parental custody for a period of eight months. She has 

not returned to parental custody since the initial removal. 

The mother refused to acknowledge the source of L.M.’s injuries. This lack 

of recognition is sufficient to prevent a return of the child to the home. In addition 

to the problems surrounding L.M.’s severe injuries, the mother continued to 

struggle with substance-abuse and mental-health issues. She missed drug tests 

and appointments with her mental-health providers. She tested positive for illegal 

substances one month prior to the termination hearing. The mother’s visits with 

L.M. have remained fully supervised. We, like the juvenile court, conclude there is 

clear and convincing evidence that L.M. could not be safely returned to her 

mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing. Clear and convincing 
6

evidence supports termination of the mother’s rights pursuant to section

232.116(1)(h). 

IV. Best Interests 

Both parents claim termination of their parental rights was not in L.M.’s best 

interests. “When we consider whether parental rights should be terminated, 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.’” M.W., 876 N.W.2d at 224 (quoting

Iowa Code § 232.116(2)).

L.M. is bonded to her relative placement, where she has resided since 

removal. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics follow L.M. for her condition

due to her injuries. While she initially experienced seizures due to her injuries, at 

the most recent appointment in February 2021, L.M.’s physician recommended 

tapering off the seizure medication.2 L.M. is behind in her gross motor skills 

development. 

The father contends termination is not in L.M.’s best interest as there are 

no safety concerns regarding his parenting, his substance use does not interfere 

with his ability to parent the child, and he stays in contact with the child’s placement 

and the provider. However, since removal, the father has seen L.M. twice a month 

for approximately two hours a month. The father’s home study was not approved. 

Further, the father was awaiting sentencing at the time of the termination hearing 

 

2 The mother testified at the termination hearing that L.M. was no longer taking 

seizure medication. 
7

on charges from 2018 and 2020.3 He recently pled guilty to operating while 

intoxicated (OWI) (second offense) and resisting or obstructing an officer, arising 

out of a 2020 arrest. The felony eluding charge was dismissed as part of a plea 

agreement. The father also pled guilty in February 2021 to two charges incurred 

in 2018, consisting of a hit and run and operating while revoked, with sentencing 

to coincide with the hearing set concerning the 2020 charges.4 Termination of the 

father’s parental rights is in the L.M.’s best interests. 

Termination of the mother’s parental rights is in L.M.’s best interests for the 

same reasons detailed concerning the mother’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence 

argument, including the mother’s ongoing mental-health and substance-abuse 

issues, inability to parent the child on her own, and failure to acknowledge the 

source of L.M.’s injuries. Generally, if the grounds for termination have been 

proven, termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. See In re 

L.M.F., 490 N.W.2d 66, 68 (Iowa 1992). 

V. Request for Six-Month Extension 

Both parents argue the juvenile court should have granted additional time 

to work toward reunification. Under section 232.117(5), the court may order an 

extension of time under section 232.104(2)(b) as an alternative to terminating 

parental rights. A six-month extension may be granted based on a “determination 

that the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at 

 

3 Sentencing was set for a date following the termination hearing. 

4 The mother informed L.M.’s medical providers she was involved in a violent 

relationship with the father. The record before of us is void of additional evidence 

of domestic abuse by the father toward the mother. The mother was arrested in 

late August 2020 for domestic abuse assault impeding airflow, with the alleged 

victim being the mother’s sister. The record does not reflect a conviction. 
8

the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We are 

further mindful that a child should not be asked to continuously wait for a stable

biological parent, particularly when the child is of tender age. In re D.W., 791 

N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010); In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474 (Iowa Ct. App.

2011). “Courts are obliged to move urgently to achieve the ends that will best

serve the child’s interests because childhood does not ‘await the wanderings of 

judicial process.’” In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495, 502 (Iowa 2014).

The mother continues to struggle to address substance-abuse and mentalhealth concerns. After removal, she entered Heart of Iowa but left prior to 

completing the program. She was terminated from a shelter care placement due 

to testing positive for THC and breaking COVID-19 protocol. She is now residing 

in an apartment, which could not accommodate her daughter’s placement. She 

has refused to accept any responsibility for her daughter’s substantial injuries and 

has not wavered from her initial explanation that the injuries were received from 

rolling off the couch onto a carpeted floor. 

The father in this case remains residing in Wisconsin, approximately three 

hours from his daughter’s residence. Since removal, he has exercised ten

separate visits, averaging two hours per visit. He does not have a driver’s license 

due to his criminal convictions and must rely on others for transportation. His home 

study was not approved due to substance-abuse concerns in the home, related to

both the father and his new girlfriend.5 He recently pled guilty to OWI (second 

 

5 The father testified his girlfriend is required to have a breathalyzer in her vehicle 

“due to a traffic stop that she was apparently intoxicated for and blew clear over 

the legal limit.” The father’s girlfriend reported to the Interstate Compact on the 
9

offense) and resisting or obstructing an officer. At the time of the termination 

hearing, he was awaiting sentencing.6 Despite that arrest, he admitted to 

marijuana use just several months prior to the termination hearing and to the use 

of alcohol three weeks prior to the hearing.7 He has a conviction history that 

involves a hit-and-run and operating while revoked. 

Since removal, both the mother and father have been unable to make 

changes that would facilitate reunification. L.M. should not be forced to wait 

indefinitely for her parents to be able to care for her, “particularly when we have so 

little evidence to rely upon to believe the circumstances will be different in six 

months.” See In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). We, like the 

juvenile court, are unable to determine 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. An

extension of time for either parent is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the 

juvenile court decision terminating the parental rights of L.M.’s mother and father. 

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

 

Placement of Children evaluator that she was charged with an OWI and smokes

THC once a month. 

6 A condition of the father’s bond was “absolute sobriety.” 

7 The father testified the type of marijuana he used prior to the termination hearing 

was legal in Wisconsin. As to his recent use of alcohol, he stated, “The alcohol, 

again, is like every—once every three weeks on the weekend, just who doesn’t?”