In the Interest of A.O. and E.O., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2195
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of A.O. and E.O., Minor Children,
R.D., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County,
The Honorable Michael E. Motto Jr., Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Barbara E. Maness, Davenport, attorney for appellant mother.

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

Grishma Arumugam, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Sandy, J.

1
SANDY, Judge.

A mother appeals1 the termination of her parental rights to two of her
children, born in 2016 and 2017. The children were initially adjudicated as in
need of assistance following a house fire that killed their maternal
grandparents and left both children with burns—the older child suffering
severe burns. The fire was determined to have started in the mother’s
bedroom “where methamphetamine paraphernalia was located.” The
children were placed with their maternal aunt and uncle, who have diligently
cared for the older child’s medical needs and ensure that both have access to
mental-health counseling. The mother argues termination is not in the
children’s best interests and, alternatively, that a guardianship should be
established in lieu of termination. We affirm.

We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re
J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014). “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 C.Z., 956 N.W.2d 113, 120 (Iowa 2021)
(citation omitted). Our primary concern is the child’s best interests. J.C., 857
N.W.2d at 500.

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”
when deciding whether termination of parental rights is in the child’s best
interest. Iowa Code § 232.116(2) (2025). “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

1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated, and he does not appeal.

2
to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re A.M.,
843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted). Yet under
section 232.117(5), we may continue placement for six months pursuant to
section 232.104(2)(b) if the need for removal will no longer exist at the end
of the extension.

Contending termination is not in the children’s best interests, the
mother seeks additional time towards reunification.2 The mother provides
limited argument on this issue, arguing that
the State failed to prove that termination is in the long term best interests
of the children or that reunification could not occur within a reasonable
time given [the mother’s] participation in mental health treatment now
commenced. Information from the children’s therapist concerning their
response to the trauma of the fire, loss of family members and separation
from their mother was notably sparse. The mother believes that long term
healing of the children will require contact with her.

....

. . . In this case, [the mother]’s testimony documents her physical and
mental trauma and the dysfunctional communication between herself and
her sister and the [Iowa Department of Health and Human Services] staff.
Evidence as to how long her mental health rehabilitation will take and any
description of a process to repair the disrupted bond with her daughters
was lacking in the information presented to the Court.

2
The mother alternatively requests that the exception to termination under
section 232.116(3)(a) be applied as well as a guardianship be established. Not only is
guardianship “not a legally preferable alternative to termination,” In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d
29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017), the exception to termination under section 232.116(3)(a) is
only available if “[a] relative has legal custody of the child[ren].” (Emphasis added.) At the
time of the termination hearing, the children were in the department’s legal custody and
placed with a relative. Thus, the exception under section 232.116(3)(a) does not apply here,
and we decline to establish a guardianship because termination is in the children’s best
interests. See Iowa Code § 232.104(4).

3
As the juvenile court noted in its well-reasoned order, the children
“have all of their basic, educational, and medical needs met. They ‘are
thriving’ and ‘have a strong bond’ with [their aunt and uncle]. . . . The girls
are doing well in school, participate in dance lessons, and [the older child]
plans to attend summer camp. They both attend therapy.” Additionally, the
children’s aunt and uncle have arranged for the older child to attend a “burn
camp” with other burn-victim children which she enjoyed “very much.”
Further medical procedures have been scheduled to address the older child’s
burn scarring.

The mother’s rosy depiction of her own progress was directly
contradicted by the testimony of the department’s case manager at the
October–November 2025 termination hearing. The case manager confirmed
that the mother has no-showed to all scheduled drug tests despite admitting
to struggling with methamphetamine use throughout the years and testing
positive as recently as 2024. She has not followed through with department
drug testing, programming, or substance-use treatment, despite being
offered transportation. And critically, the mother has not visited the children
since October 2024, testifying that the visits were not “reasonable” and did
not give her opportunity to participate. The mother—who has been
unemployed for the entirety of this case—also claimed she was not given
enough notice to arrange for attending visits.

We understand that the mother also suffered injuries in the house fire.
We have no doubt that this makes the substance-treatment road all the more
arduous for her. But her inability to address that substance use in any way
demonstrates the troubles she will encounter in attempting to raise her
children who also suffer from demanding medical and mental-health needs
following their burn injuries and loss of their live-in grandparents. The

4
mother has shown no possibility that she will be on a path towards
rehabilitation in six months—let alone be able to resume care. Termination
is in the children’s best interests.

AFFIRMED.

5