In the Interest of T.G.-B., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2213
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of T.G.-B., Minor Child,
D.G., Father,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County,
The Honorable Michelle Jungers, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo,
attorney for appellant father.

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

Nina Forcier of Forcier Law Office, P.L.L.C., Waterloo, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

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

1
SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child,1
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for
termination and claiming termination is not in the child’s best interests due
to the closeness of the parent-child bond. Upon our review, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health
and Human Services at the time of the child’s birth in January 2024, when
the mother and child tested positive for methamphetamine. The father, who
is married to the mother, reported he had been substance free for a year. The
family agreed to participate in a safety plan with the mother’s contact with
the child being supervised by the maternal grandmother, with whom the
family resided.

The mother continued to acknowledge use of methamphetamine, and
the parents reported they were trying to find a place of their own to live.
Concerns of domestic violence between the parents were reported. The
grandmother maintained the parents were no longer allowed in her residence
due to their fighting and other issues, but the parents kept “coming back.”
The grandmother was concerned she could not assure the safety of the child.
In July, the child was adjudicated in need of assistance, removed from the
parents’ custody, and placed in foster care.

A dispositional order entered in October noted the mother continued
to use methamphetamine. The father was incarcerated on domestic-abuse
and possession-of-controlled-substance charges for an incident the month

1
The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She does not appeal.

2
prior,2 as well as probation violations. A no-contact order was in place
between the parents. The court ordered in part:
The parents shall complete substance abuse and mental health evaluations
. . . and comply with all recommendations for substance abuse and/or
mental health treatment. The parents shall comply with any requests for
random drug testing. I[f ] the No Contact Order is lifted and the parents
intend to be in a relationship, they shall participate in couple’s counseling.

The father was released from jail in January 2025, and he began living
in a residential correctional facility. The department’s March report to the
court noted the father was scheduled to participate in weekly supervised
visits with the child, during which he “appear[ed] to struggle at
understanding the child’s needs.” The father passed his drug tests for
probation and participated in a methadone-treatment program. The mother
was in jail. The parents maintained an off-and-on relationship. The father
supported the child’s placement with the mother in treatment when she was
released from jail. But the father stated that if the child could not be returned
to the parents’ custody, he wanted her to be placed with his mother in North
Carolina.3

By July, the department reported “[t]he parents have a long history of
domestic violence and have yet to participate in couple’s counseling.”
Neither parent had housing. The father was not participating in mental-
health counseling, but he continued to participate in an addiction-treatment
program. The State initiated termination-of-parental-rights proceedings.

2
In January 2025, the father pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, third
offense, and possession of marijuana, third offense. He was also convicted of domestic
abuse assault, second offense.
3
A home study for the paternal grandmother was denied.

3
The termination hearing took place in October. The mother was in jail.
The father had obtained housing and was employed, working in the evenings.
The father’s weekly drug tests for his probation officer continued to be
negative, but the father failed to comply with the department’s requests for
random drug tests. But he allowed a sweat patch test to be applied on
September 29, which was positive for methamphetamine. The father
attended about half of his scheduled visits with the child, averaging one visit
per week. The visits remained fully supervised. The father acknowledged
that “[a]t the outset of this case,” he was “not available to participate in
service[s] due to his own legal troubles.” He denied using methamphetamine.
But he acknowledged using marijuana, explaining that it “may have been
laced with something else.” He requested the State’s petition be dismissed.

The department and the guardian ad litem recommended termination
of parental rights. The court entered an order terminating both parents’
rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2025). The father
appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re
A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Our primary consideration is the
best interests of the child. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). The
defining elements of our best interests’ analysis are the child’s safety and
need for a permanent home. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).

ANALYSIS
In general, when reviewing termination-of-parental-rights cases, we
follow a three-step analysis, asking whether (1) a statutory ground for
termination is satisfied, (2) the child’s best interests are served by

4
termination, and (3) a statutory exception applies and should be exercised to
preclude termination. See In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022); see also
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3). Yet “[w]e do not address any steps not raised by
a parent.” In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 532 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc).

I. Statutory Grounds for Termination

The district court terminated the father’s parental rights on two
statutory grounds, but we may affirm if one ground is supported by the
record. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We focus on
section 232.116(1)(h), which entails our review of the father’s challenge to
the court’s determination that the child could not safely be returned to his
custody. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4) (requiring the State to show by
clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be returned safely to
the custody of either parent at the time of the termination hearing).

The father tested positive for methamphetamine less than a month
before the termination hearing. He acknowledged a history of
methamphetamine use but denied recent use. The court did not find his
testimony to be credible. The father’s “active and unaddressed
methamphetamine use precludes a finding that the child can be safely
returned to h[is] custody.” In re A.T., No. 25-0057, 2025 WL 1452862, at *3
(Iowa Ct. App. May 21, 2025). Moreover, “the father has not progressed past
fully supervised visits, which in and of itself prevents an immediate return of
custody.” Id. (cleaned up). On this issue, the district court found:
Clear and convincing evidence exists that the child cannot be returned to
the care of . . . the father at this time or at any time in the near future.
Despite the numerous services that were offered to the parents, which
included Family Centered Services, supervised visitation, referrals for
substance abuse and mental health evaluations and treatment, random
drug testing, SafeCare, domestic violence services, parent partner and
other community based services; no parent has been willing or able to

5
utilize the services offered and no parent has been able to demonstrate that
they are capable of meeting the needs of a child.

We concur with the court’s assessment that the child could not be
returned to the father’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.

II. Best Interests

The father also claims that termination was not in the child’s best
interests. To determine best interests, 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).

The father maintains termination is not in the child’s best interests due
to the “significant bond” he shares with her. The department caseworker
testified it was “obvious that [the father] loves his daughter” and “he tries
really hard to parent her.” Even so, she did not believe the father’s bond
should deter termination because “he doesn’t show up consistently” to
visits. She further explained that she was unable to recommend increasing
visits because he was “not being honest” about his substance use.

Even considering the existence of a bond between the father and the
child, we conclude termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best
interests. See L.A., 20 N.W.3d at 535 (considering impact of the parent-child
bond on the “child’s mental and emotional conditions and needs when
making a best-interests determination). “The defining elements of the best-
interests [analysis] are child’s safety and need for a permanent home.” In re
B.S., No. 20-1643, 2021 WL 609093, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2021)
(cleaned up). The child has been out of the father’s custody for fifteen out of
twenty-two months of her life. By all accounts, she is happy and thriving with
her foster family, which includes a younger foster sibling “she’s very bonded

6
with.” The family is a concurrent placement. Under these facts and
circumstances, we concur with the court’s conclusion that “[b]ecause of the
child’s age, the mother’s and father’s history of substance abuse concerns
and unmet mental health needs, [and] domestic violence in the relationship,”
termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.

We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

7