In the Interest of P.S., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1940
Filed January 28, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of P.S., Minor Child,
J.S., Father,
Appellant,
C.G., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County,
The Honorable Thomas J. Straka, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Tyler Ries of Reynolds & Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque,
attorney for appellant father.

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

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Patricia Reisen-Ottavi of Ottavi Law Firm, Dubuque, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

1
Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
Opinion by Greer, P.J.

2
GREER, Presiding Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to one child. Conceding that the grounds for termination were met,
both parents argue that termination was not in the child’s best interests and
that they should be given an additional six months to work toward
reunification. On our de novo review, we affirm the termination of their
parental rights.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The child, P.S., was born in January 2025, testing positive for
amphetamines, fentanyl, and opiates. The child was admitted to the NICU
for feeding delays, most likely due to drug exposure in utero.

The mother, thirty-seven years old, and father, forty-one years old,
both have at least a decade-long history of methamphetamine use. The
mother began using methamphetamine when she was thirteen years old. She
had almost a ten-year period of sobriety that ended around the time she met
the father eleven years ago. Since then, her longest period of sobriety had
been just under six months. She had not held a stable residence of her own
in approximately seven years.

Since he began using methamphetamine, the father’s longest period of
sobriety was eight months and occurred when he was living in a halfway
house. Outside of a structured environment, the father’s longest period of
sobriety was a couple months. In addition to his substance use, the father
had also spent the better part of a decade in and out of jail and prison for
various crimes, many of which were drug related. In the past ten years, the
father’s longest period without being incarcerated was four months. The
father had not had housing of his own in ten years.

3
The day after the child was born, the Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) met with the mother and father. The mother
admitted to using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. Both the mother
and father admitted to using methamphetamine shortly before the child was
born. The mother reported she had previously used methamphetamine
intravenously, but she was now “hot railing,” a combination of smoking and
snorting it.

Both the mother and father acknowledged that they did not have
suitable housing for the child because the mother was living with a relative
who was a sex offender and the father, though living with his parents, had
active warrants out for his arrest. The child was removed from his parents’
custody on February 4 and placed with the mother’s stepsister.

On February 5, the father was arrested. He remained incarcerated at
various jails in Iowa and Wisconsin until August 8. While in jail, the father
participated in virtual visits with the child. These visits lasted approximately
ten minutes each.

In March, the child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance. The
court ordered the parents to, among other things, cooperate with Family
Centered Services (FCS), refrain from using drugs, comply with random
drug-testing requirements, and undergo a substance-use evaluation.

The mother began participating in supervised visits with the child
shortly after the child was removed from her custody. In March, the mother
tested positive for methamphetamine. In late March, the mother moved into
sober-living housing until she began inpatient substance-use treatment. The
mother began inpatient treatment on March 31.

4
On May 1, the mother was successfully discharged from inpatient
treatment and moved into another sober-living facility. However, in late May,
the mother learned she had stage four cervical cancer. The stress of this
diagnosis caused the mother to disengage with services and relapse on
methamphetamine. She was kicked out of her housing on May 26 for
noncompliance with the program’s rules. She then moved into another
sober-living home but was kicked out on June 4. After that, she moved back
in with her relative for a period of time, then lived with a friend from
Narcotics Anonymous, and then with various other friends, many of whom
used methamphetamine.

The mother did not attend visits with the child from May 22 through
the end of June. She missed several drug tests in May, June, and July. The
mother reengaged in services and visits with the child on July 1.

On July 16, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights. At a
meeting with FCS the next day, the mother questioned why she was unable
to have the child in her care while she was using methamphetamine. The
mother expressed resistance to mental-health therapy, complaining she did
not want to be someone’s “guinea pig.” Although she did not have housing,
she did not want to live in a shelter and was reluctant to live in an apartment
because she did not want to deal with neighbors. She also did not want to get
an in-person job, did not want a service job because she did not like being
bossed around, and did not want to work in general because she “want[ed]
more out of her life than to work all the time.”

The mother admitted to using methamphetamine on July 29. During
an August 1 visit, the mother admitted she was struggling and did not have
anywhere to live that would be appropriate for the child. Around this same

5
time, the mother reported she was getting money by gambling through an
online casino.

On August 8, the father was released from jail and discharged from
probation in Wisconsin. After his release from jail, the father began working
for his parents, doing construction on their home, where he also lived. The
father also began participating in supervised, in-person visits with the child.

On August 11, the father had a sweat patch applied, which was
removed on August 18. The sweat patch was positive for methamphetamine.

On August 12, the father underwent a substance-use evaluation, which
recommended partial hospital treatment, a step below inpatient treatment.
On August 12 and 25 and September 5, the father underwent urinalysis drug
testing, which was negative for all substances.

On September 11, the court held the termination trial. At trial, both
the HHS social worker and the guardian ad litem recommended termination
of the parents’ parental rights.

At trial, the mother admitted that her most-recent methamphetamine
use was “a couple weeks” before trial. She reported she was in substance-
use treatment, but the HHS social worker had not been able to confirm that.
She did not have stable housing or a job. She reported she had applied for
disability benefits but did not know the status of her application.

The father testified that, despite the positive sweat patch, his most-
recent methamphetamine use was in February before he was arrested. The
father had completed the partial hospital program and had progressed to
intensive outpatient substance-use treatment. He continued to live with and
work for his parents.

6
After trial, the father submitted additional documentation showing
that he had stipulated to a probation violation in a Dubuque County criminal
case, was held in contempt, and was sentenced to sixty days in jail, with credit
for time served. Due to the amount of time he had already spent in jail, he
had satisfied his sentence and was discharged from probation.

After hearing all of the evidence, the court terminated both the
mother’s and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h)
and (l) (2025). Both parents separately appeal.

II. Standard of Review.

We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re M.W.,
876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). “We are not bound by the juvenile court’s
findings of fact, but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the
credibility of witnesses.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014)
(citation omitted).

“We will uphold an order terminating parental rights if there is clear
and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under Iowa Code
section 232.116.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). “Evidence
is clear and convincing when there are no serious or substantial doubts as to
the correctness or conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id.
(cleaned up).

III. Analysis.

On appeal, the parents do not dispute that the State proved the
statutory grounds for termination. Instead, both parents argue that
termination of their parental rights is not in the child’s best interests. Both

7
parents also argue that they should be given an additional six months to work
toward reunification. We will address both appeals in turn.

A. Mother’s Appeal. The mother argues that termination is not in
the child’s best interests because she is affectionate and attentive to the child
and there is a bond between them. The mother also argues she should be
given an additional six months to work toward reunification.

“In considering whether to terminate the rights of a parent . . . the
court shall 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). “In determining best interests, we look to the
child’s long-range as well as immediate interests, consider what the future
holds for the child if returned to the parents, and weigh the child’s safety and
need for a permanent home.” In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 529 (Iowa 2019)
(cleaned up).

Despite the bond between the mother and child, we conclude that
termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.
The mother has not adequately addressed her substance-use or her mental-
health concerns, does not have stable housing or a job, and admitted to recent
methamphetamine use at trial. Importantly, the mother had not taken steps
to address her significant past trauma, which she acknowledged contributed
to her substance use. Although we do not doubt that the mother loves the
child, she is not in a place to ensure the child’s safety, long-term nurturing
and growth, or physical, mental, and emotional needs. See A.M., 843 N.W.2d
at 112 (“It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency
after the State has proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1)
by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a

8
stable home for the child.” (citation omitted)). We conclude termination of
the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.

For those same reasons, we decline to grant the mother a six-month
extension of time to work toward reunification. See Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b) (noting the juvenile court may grant a six-month extension
of time to work toward reunification only if it “determin[es] 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”). Given the mother’s current instability
and the significant amount of work she still needs to do to be able to safely
parent the child, we cannot conclude that the need for removal will no longer
exist if the mother were given a six-month extension of time to work toward
reunification. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 (“We do not gamble with the
children’s future by asking them to continuously wait for a stable biological
parent, particularly at such tender ages.” (cleaned up)).

B. Father’s Appeal. The father argues that termination is not in the
best interests of the child because he has a strong bond with the child. The
father also argues that, after his release from custody, he made strides to be
an active and safe caregiver for the child. Finally, the father requests a six-
month extension of time to work toward reunification.

We find this to be more of a close call given the father’s recent progress
and the evidence developed at the termination trial. Yet, we recognize that
often we consider efforts made close to the termination trial to be “simply too
late.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000) (“[C]hanges in the two
or three months before the termination hearing, in light of the preceding
eighteen months, are insufficient.”). The father was just released from
incarceration about a month before the trial, so he had never moved past
semi-supervised visits and only had five visits since his release.

9
Still, since his release from incarceration, the father was attending an
intensive outpatient program every weekday from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m., had a
care navigator at the treatment program and an individual therapist. At the
treatment program, the father provided urinalysis tests that were consistently
negative for substances, but HHS mandated that he wear a sweat patch for a
week in the middle of August and it tested positive for methamphetamine.
The father denied use and offered to provide a hair sample for other testing,
but HHS refused his request. And the State contended that the test results
from the urinalysis did not conclusively rule out methamphetamine in the
father’s system because of the sensitivity settings for detection related to the
particular test.

With that backdrop, we commend the father’s progress since his
release from jail and do not doubt his love for the child, but we cannot say he
has solved his substance use issues on a long-term basis. So, we conclude
that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.
The father had only been out of custody for approximately five weeks at the
time of trial, and still there were concerns over his use of methamphetamine.
Likewise, over the past ten years, the father has spent a significant amount of
time incarcerated or otherwise dealing with criminal charges, mostly related
to drug use. Importantly, the father also had not demonstrated the ability to
remain sober for more than a couple months. The father had not progressed
beyond supervised visits with the child and had not shown his ability to
parent outside of a structured, supervised setting. On this record, we
conclude that termination is in the child’s best interests.

For those same reasons, we cannot conclude that the need for removal
would no longer exist in six months. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b); see also
D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 (“We do not gamble with the children’s future by

10
asking them to continuously wait for a stable biological parent, particularly at
such tender ages.” (cleaned up)). While the father has made progress, and
argues that these changes are permanent, he has not demonstrated sufficient
stability to guarantee that in six months the child could return to his custody.
We decline to grant the father a six-month extension of time to work toward
reunification.

IV. Conclusion.

We conclude that termination of the mother’s and father’s parental
rights was in the child’s best interests and an additional six months to work
toward reunification would not resolve the concerns that brought the family
to HHS’s attention. For those reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

11