In the Interest of K.S., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2006
Filed February 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of K.S., Minor Child,
J.H., Father,
Appellant
K.S.-M., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County,
The Honorable Joan M. Black, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS
_______________

Sarah Hradek of the State Public Defender’s Office, Iowa City, attorney for
appellant father.

Joseph C. Pavelich of Fitzgerald, Klesner, & Pavelich, Iowa City, attorney
for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Sara Linder of Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
_______________

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

2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to
their son, born in 2024. The father claims the district court erred in
concluding the child could not safely be returned to his custody, termination
is not in the child’s best interests, and the parent-child bond should preclude
termination. The mother requests an extension of time to work toward
reunification and contends the court erred in rejecting her request to reopen
the record to accept evidence of her continued participation in reunification
services after the termination hearing. We review appeals of termination-of-
parental-rights proceedings under our familiar three-step analysis.1 See In re
L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3)
(2025).

FATHER’S APPEAL
I. Grounds for Termination

The court found grounds authorizing termination of the father’s
parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). On appeal, the father
claims the State “failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that K.S.
cannot be placed in [his] care.” 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).

1
But if a parent does not challenge a step on appeal, then we do not address it. See
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). For example, the mother acknowledges the
State proved the statutory grounds for termination under one section but claims the
grounds were not shown under another. Accordingly, she has waived any claim of error
on the unchallenged ground. We therefore affirm on the unchallenged ground. See In re
A.S., No. 23-1625, 2023 WL 8449568, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023).

3
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services became
involved with this family most recently in December 2024,2 just before the
child’s first birthday, due to concerns of methamphetamine use by the
mother. The department also learned the mother threatened the father with
a knife in the child’s presence. Paternity testing identified the father as K.S.’s
father. Although the father reported he was in a relationship with the mother,
he had limited involvement with K.S. until after this case was initiated. The
father stipulated to K.S.’s removal,3 and the child was adjudicated in need of
assistance (CINA).

The father began supervised visits with the child, completed a
psychological evaluation, and agreed to start parenting services. But by
March 2025, he had not completed any requested drug screens. In April, the
father completed a substance-use evaluation that reported his urine-analysis
screen was positive for an unspecified substance and recommended extended
outpatient treatment. Around that same time, the father drove the mother to
the child’s foster home unannounced, where the mother was verbally
aggressive toward the foster parents, prompting the court to enter a no-
contact order against the parents. Concerns about domestic violence
between the parents continued, and the parents acknowledged they used
methamphetamine together. The court entered a CINA/dispositional order
in May, which the mother appealed. This court affirmed the district court’s

2
The mother has a long history of methamphetamine use, and her parental rights
to three of her four older children were previously terminated due to unresolved substance
use.
3
The mother evaded the department, and K.S. was removed from her custody at
a court hearing during which her demeanor indicated that she was under the influence.

4
order in August. In re K.S., No. 25-0839, 2025 WL 2238592, at *2–3 (Iowa
Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025).

Meanwhile, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights.
Shortly thereafter, the father picked the mother up from inpatient treatment.
They stayed in a hotel and then went to the father’s home where they used
methamphetamine together. The father no-showed for the majority of drug
tests requested by the department throughout this proceeding. Some of his
completed sweat patches were reported as tampered with, and others were
positive for methamphetamine.

The termination hearing took place in September. The father denied
he had a substance-use problem, but then he equivocated, stating, “I
wouldn’t say I don’t have any sort of problems with drugs because, obviously,
I do but, yeah.” He acknowledged he had “not been 100 percent honest”
about his substance use. The father maintained that he had “tried [his] best
to comply” with testing. He stated, “I’ve done not as well as I should have
been doing. I could have done better.” Nonetheless, the father believed K.S.
could be placed in his custody “at this time.” The father also requested an
extension “to show that I can prove to you guys that I take this seriously.” He
assured the court that “I really want what is best for [K.S.],” and “I’m
confident that I can do the right thing for my son.”

The department and attorney/guardian ad litem recommended
termination, and the court entered an order terminating both parents’ rights.
Following our review of the record, we concur with the court that K.S. could
not be safely returned to the father’s custody at the time of the termination
hearing due to his unaddressed methamphetamine use and other facts replete
in the record (including unaddressed domestic violence). Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h) was satisfied.

5
II. Best Interests

Termination also must serve the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). The father states that he “began interacting somewhat
regularly with K.S. in November or December 2024, when K.S. was less than
one year old,” but his interactions prior to that were limited by the mother.
He maintains termination of his parental rights is not in the child’s best
interests because he has developed a relationship with the child.

The department caseworker acknowledged that the father had
“engaged in a lot of good services” to “improve[] his parenting skills” and
that he’d also “engaged in some mental health services that have helped
him.” But she did not believe substance-use treatment was effective for the
father because he continued to deny that he was using. She opined
termination was in the child’s best interests, explaining, “It’s . . . really a lack
of accountability and, you know, willingness to take, you know, the testing
seriously by [the father].” In her view, the father had “not participat[ed]
wholeheartedly throughout the case.” At the termination hearing, the father
agreed he had never cared for the child beyond his two-hour fully supervised
visits.

In assessing the best interests of this child, we must look at his long-
range as well as immediate interests. See In re K.F., 437 N.W.2d 559, 560
(Iowa 1989). “This requires considering what the future holds for the child
if returned to the parents.” In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).
When making this decision, we look to the father’s past performance because
it may indicate the quality of care he’s capable of providing in the future. Id.
This child has been exposed to substance use and domestic violence, which
creates a dangerous environment for him. See In re J.B.-N., No. 25-1262,
2025 WL 3022957, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2025). The court agreed

6
with the guardian ad litem’s assessment that “emotional harm” from ending
the parent-child relationship “is outweighed by the consistency and physical
safety [K.S.] will receive if the parents’ rights are terminated.” Upon our
review, we agree termination is in K.S.’s best interests.

III. Permissive Exception to Termination

The father also claims the closeness of the parent-child bond should
prompt the court to apply an exception to termination. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(3)(c). He points to the fact that he “was able to develop a
relationship and bond with K.S. especially as the CINA case progressed and
his visits were regularly offered.” He asserts that “[a]s the case went on, and
the relationship developed, K.S. has come to recognize [him] as ʻdad’ and
now calls him such.”

The court acknowledged K.S. “may have a bond” with the father but
concluded his “need for ongoing nurturance, structure and permanency
outweighs the loss of a bond that may exist.” Application of the exception
under paragraph (c) “requires clear and convincing evidence that
ʻtermination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the
closeness of the parent-child relationship.’” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169
(Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). Under this record, the
father has not established termination of his parental rights will be
detrimental to the child.

7
MOTHER’S APPEAL
I. Additional Time to Work Toward Reunification

The mother maintains that if she is granted a six-month extension, the
grounds for termination would no longer exist.4 To support her claim, the
mother points to the “long-term relationships” K.S. would have with her
other children and her soon-to-be newborn 5 if her parental relationship
remained intact. She further argues the court failed to consider the child’s
best interests in declining an extension, and if it had, it would have granted
her more time to “demonstrate her ability to parent K.S.”

The court entered a CINA/dispositional order in May. The mother
appealed that order.6 In July, while the appeal was pending, a permanency
hearing took place, during which the State stated its intent to initiate
termination proceedings. The court’s order alerted the mother that if she
“d[id] not meet conditions to have the child returned to the home within that
amount of time, the State may request that the Court enter permanent orders
for the child, which could include termination of parental rights and
placement of the child for adoption.”

In August, the mother left treatment and used methamphetamine with
the father. The termination hearing took place the following month. The
mother’s decision to leave treatment and use methamphetamine shortly

4
We question whether this issue was preserved for our review. We assume without
deciding that this issue was preserved and elect to reach the merits of this challenge.
5
The mother became pregnant during this proceeding.
The mother appealed the adjudication and dispositional order, which was
6

affirmed by our court on August 6, 2025. K.S., 2025 WL 2238592, at *3.

8
before the termination hearing weighs against her request for additional time,
especially after she failed to consistently participate in services throughout
this case. As the guardian ad litem opined:
At best, [the mother is] 37 days sober. [K.S.] needed that to happen
probably four to five months ago, and if that had happened I don’t think we
would have had this hearing today. [K.S.] spends four hours of the 168
hours in a week with his parents. When funding was available, he was
spending eight hours. So per parent, at best, he’s spending two percent of
his time with his parents. The problem is what was happening outside that
two percent.

. . . I think [the mother] was being honest today with us about a lot
of things. She does appear differently. But we are asking [K.S.] to weigh
the odds that it will remain this way, not just in the next months but
ongoing, and the case law repeatedly states children are not equipped with
pause buttons and the history is the best indicator of the future.

....

It is not fair to ask [K.S.] to continue to wait for them. I appreciate
that [K.S.] has relationships with other people in his life such as his half-
sisters and a paternal aunt and uncle. I don’t know how we can maintain
those. I hope that we can in some way, but I don’t believe those
relationships—I don’t mean to say they are not important, but in terms of
[K.S.]’s need for permanency, not just now but forever, with what we have
here, the downside to [K.S.], I don’t believe it that way.

We concur that the mother failed to establish that additional time
would have fixed the problems that prevented reunification with the child
thus far. Under this record, we cannot find that additional time would result
in a different outcome.

II. Motion to Reopen the Record

The termination hearing took place in September 2025. In October,
the mother filed a motion to reopen the record “to require the submission of
records of additional drug test results completed after [the termination

9
hearing].” The court issued its termination order in November, in which it
summarily denied the mother’s motion.

The mother challenges the court’s ruling on appeal, claiming:
Given the nature of the allegations made at the termination trial . . . and
the evidence presented at the hearing, even the limited nature of [the
mother]’s drug testing results would have been relevant to the court’s
decision about whether to terminate [the mother]’s parental rights or
extend her opportunity to work toward reunification.

“We review the court’s decision not to reopen the record for
additional evidence for an abuse of discretion.” In re S.W., No. 17-0297, 2017
WL 1735938, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 3, 2017).

The mother acknowledges “[t]he court heard testimony throughout
the trial of the mother’s drug use and treatment.” The court also considered
the mother’s testimony that she last used methamphetamine in August.
Indeed, the court found the mother “has begun to do better now that she is
pregnant.” However, the court further noted that she “has a demonstrated
history of getting sober during a pregnancy and then resume using illegal
substances after the child is born.” The court concluded the mother’s
“sobriety while she is pregnant does not convince the Court that the change
is sustainable.” The mother had many months prior to the hearing to show a
commitment to treatment and sobriety. We find no abuse of discretion in the
court’s ruling.

DISPOSITION
We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

10