In the Interest of E.H., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0189
Filed June 18, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF E.H.,
Minor Child,

M.M., Mother,
Appellant,

L.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.

A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental

rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Teresa Pope of Pope Law, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Jeremy M. Evans of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Michelle R. Becker, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Lynn Vogan of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and

Chicchelly, JJ.
2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental

rights to a child born in August 2023. The father challenges the grounds for

termination, while the mother contends termination is not in the child’s best

interests and would hurt the child based on the strength of their bond. Both parents

contend a guardianship would serve the child’s best interests, and the mother asks

us to delay permanency for the child. After reviewing the record, we affirm the

order terminating each of their parental rights.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The child was removed from the parents’ custody because the mother used

marijuana throughout her pregnancy and tested positive for marijuana use at the

time of birth. The child also tested positive for marijuana. Both parents stipulated

to the removal, and the child was placed with the paternal grandmother. The State

petitioned to adjudicate the child in need of assistance (CINA), and the juvenile

court granted the petition in October 2023.

Both parents have long histories of substance use and criminal convictions

related to it. Both participated in substance-use treatment before the CINA

proceedings involving this child. A child the mother gave birth to in 2021 is in a

guardianship with a relative because of the mother’s substance use.

During the CINA proceedings, both parents participated in substance-use

treatment but struggled with their sobriety. When neither made meaningful

progress in the year following the CINA adjudication, the juvenile court ordered the

State to petition to terminate their parental rights. Following a hearing, the juvenile
3

court terminated both the mother’s and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).

II. Scope of Review.

“We generally review CINA proceedings and termination of parental rights

proceedings de novo.” In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014). “[W]e review

both the facts and the law, and we adjudicate rights anew.” Id. (citation omitted).

“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 J.V., 13 N.W.3d

595, 603 (Iowa 2024) (citation omitted).

III. Discussion.

We review the termination of parental rights de novo using a three-step

analysis. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021). First, we determine

whether the evidence supports any ground for termination under

section 232.116(1). Id. If so, we apply the best-interest framework described in

section 232.116(2) to determine whether it supports terminating parental rights. Id.

Finally, we consider whether one of the scenarios described in section 232.116(3)

apply and, if so, whether it should preclude termination. Id. We only address the

steps challenged on appeal and any specific claims presented. In re L.E.,

No. 24-1263, 2024 WL 4762849, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2024).

A. Grounds for Termination.

The father challenges the evidence showing the grounds for terminating his

parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). Termination is appropriate

under this section when a child is three years old or younger, has been adjudicated

CINA, removed from the parent’s custody for at least six months, and cannot be
4

returned safely to the parent’s custody “at the present time.” Iowa Code

§ 232.116(1)(h). There is no dispute that the State established the first three

requirements for termination under section 232.116(1)(h), but the father

challenges the evidence showing the child could not be returned to his custody at

the time of the termination hearing. See In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 168 (Iowa

2021) (interpreting “at the present time” to mean at the time of the termination

hearing). He argues that

the State failed to establish the nexus of the father’s previous drug
use and his ability to care for and raise his child. The father was
actively working on getting sober. Being sober takes time and the
father was working at it. They have not proven by clear and
convincing evidence that his developing sobriety would prohibit him
from being able to care for his child.

Clear and convincing evidence shows the child cannot be returned to the

father’s custody. The father admits that he first used methamphetamine more than

eleven years ago and used it as recently as one week before the termination

hearing. He admits that he has a substance-use problem. At the same time, he

denies having unaddressed issues involving substance use and believes it poses

no danger to himself or others. At the time of the termination hearing, the father

was living with his brother, who also has a history of substance use. The father’s

long history of substance use and ongoing methamphetamine use, coupled with

his cavalier attitude about it, impedes the child’s return to his custody. In re L.H.,

13 N.W.3d 627, 629 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024) (“Since concerns remained for the

father’s substance use, the child could not have been returned to his custody at

the time of the termination hearing.”), abrogated on other grounds by In re L.A.,

___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 855764, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025); In re R.M.-V.,
5

13 N.W.3d 620, 626 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024) (holding that mother who used

methamphetamine less than one month before the termination hearing failed to

demonstrate she was on a path to sobriety and thus could not provide the child

with a stable home); In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 776 (Iowa 2012) (“We have long

recognized that an unresolved, severe, and chronic drug addiction can render a

parent unfit to raise children. ‘No parent should leave his small children in the care

of a meth addict—the hazards are too great.’” (citations omitted)). The father was

also facing charges of third-degree burglary and possession of methamphetamine,

which were filed one month before the termination hearing. He was not engaged

with mental-health treatment or consistently visiting the child. These ongoing

concerns only heighten the likelihood that the child would suffer harm that justifies

a CINA adjudication if returned to the father’s custody. Termination is appropriate

under section 232.116(1)(h).

B. Best Interests of the Child.

The mother challenges the finding that termination is in the child’s best

interests. In determining 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). “[W]e 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). In making this determination,

we review evidence of the parent’s past performance because it may indicate the

parent’s future capabilities. In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 315 (Iowa 2021).
6

The mother began using controlled substances eleven years ago. She

made progress at the start of the CINA proceedings, and by March 2024, a

transition plan was developed to return the child to her care. But the transition plan

was stopped when the mother relapsed by using cocaine the same month. Testing

in April and May was negative for all substances, but the mother tested positive for

methamphetamine in July. Between July and the January 2025 termination

hearing, the mother provided only one sample that tested negative. She failed to

provide samples on every other occasion requested but one, and that sample

tested positive for methamphetamine.

The mother admits that she used marijuana the day before the termination

hearing. She began intensive outpatient treatment for substance use on

December 12 but only met with her provider for one individual session in the month

that followed. The mother could not recall the provider’s name, testifying that “it

starts with a K. I believe it’s Katherine or Kassidy or something like that.” Group

treatment sessions had yet to begin. The mother has been in treatment multiple

times and testified that she is “an addict.” But when asked if she has substance

use concerns that have yet to be fully addressed, the mother answered, “No.”

Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)(3) allows termination when a young child

has been removed from a parent’s custody for six months. Once the statutory

period for termination has passed, we view the proceedings with a sense of

urgency. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494–95 (Iowa 2000). By the termination

hearing, the child had been removed from the mother’s custody for sixteen and

one-half months. The mother admitted the child could not be returned to her

custody but asked for “another shot” at parenting, claiming that she would change
7

“[e]verything that needs to” if given more time. But considering her history of

substance use and her progress during the CINA proceedings, we agree that

terminating the mother’s parental rights serves the child’s best interests. We will

not deny the child permanency in the hope that the mother may one day be able

to meet her needs. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (“[W]e

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 stable home for the child.” (citation omitted)).

We agree that terminating the mother’s parental rights serves the child’s best

interests.

C. Iowa Code Section 232.116(3).

The mother next seeks to avoid termination based on one of the

circumstances outlined in section 232.116(3). The court “need not terminate the

relationship between the parent and child” if one of those circumstances exists.

Iowa Code § 232.116(3). The mother argues that clear and convincing evidence

shows that “termination would be detrimental to the child . . . due to the closeness

of the parent-child relationship.” Id. § 232.116(3)(c). To avoid termination on this

basis, clear and convincing evidence must “show that, on balance, [the closeness

of the parent-child] bond makes termination more detrimental than not.” W.M., 957

N.W.2d at 315. The mother bears the burden of proof. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d

467, 476 (Iowa 2018).

The mother has not shown clear and convincing evidence that terminating

her parental rights would be more detrimental to the child than not. The child was

removed from the mother’s custody at birth. Although the mother had some semi-
8

supervised overnight visits in early 2024, her attendance at visits fell sharply.by

the end of the year. As the juvenile court noted, the bond between the mother and

child “has greatly diminished over the past several months” as a result.

D. Alternatives to Termination.

Finally, the parents argue for alternatives to terminating their parental rights.

Both seek a guardianship with a relative. The mother also asks to continue the

child’s placement for six months.

1. Guardianship.

Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(d)(2) allows the court to transfer

guardianship and custody of a child rather than terminate parental rights. The

mother wants a guardianship with the maternal grandmother, who is the guardian

of the mother’s older child. The father wants a guardianship with the paternal

grandmother, who has served as the child’s caretaker since removal.

We have often noted that guardianships are not legally preferred to

termination. See, e.g., In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017); see

also A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 475 (“An appropriate determination to terminate a parent-

child relationship is not to be countermanded by the ability and willingness of a

family relative to take the child. The child’s best interests always remain the first

consideration.” (citation omitted)). “A guardianship does not provide the same

level of stability and safety for a child as termination of parental rights and adoption

because a guardianship is not permanent.” In re V.W., No. 24-0983, 2024 WL

4394433, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2024). A guardianship requires a written

report to the court every six months and is inherently uncertain as, at any time, a
9

parent can challenge the guardianship or the court could appoint a different

guardian. See Iowa Code §§ 232.117–.118; A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477–78.

In determining whether to terminate parental rights or place a child in a

guardianship, we consider the child’s age, the length of the removal, the viability

of other permanency options, and the relationship between the parent and

guardian. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 478; B.T., 894 N.W.2d at 34. Because the

child was less than two years old at the time of termination, a guardianship could

last sixteen years. Considering each parent’s performance during the CINA

proceedings, we cannot find that the child would benefit by remaining in limbo.

See In re G.E., No. 13-1086, 2013 WL 5229671, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 18,

2013) (holding that a guardianship “would only prolong the uncertainty for the

children” where nothing in the record suggested the father was interested in

resolving his substance-use issues).

2. Additional Time.

Finally, the mother argues she should be granted more time under Iowa

Code section 232.104(2)(b), which allows the court to continue the child’s

placement for another six months if doing so will eliminate the need for the child’s

removal. But before the court can grant an extension, it must “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.” Iowa Code

§ 232.104(2)(b).

In rejecting the mother’s request for a six-month extension, the juvenile

court noted that the child has lived all sixteen months of life outside the mother’s
10

custody. Although the mother maintained sobriety early in the CINA proceedings,

she relapsed in March 2024 and has not maintained any significant period of

sobriety since. Based on her long history of substance use and inability to maintain

sobriety, even after losing custody of another child, the court did not find it likely

that the child could be returned to the mother’s custody in six months. Because

the record supports this finding, we affirm.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.