In the Interest of A.S., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 26-0018
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of A.S., Minor Child,
H.S., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County,
The Honorable Hunter W. Thorpe, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Daniela Matasovic of Matasovic Law Firm, Dalton, attorney for appellant
mother.

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

Shannon M. Leighty, Nevada, 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 mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor
child, A.S., born in 2014. 1 She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the grounds for termination, claims termination is not in the
child’s best interests, argues a permissive exception to termination should be
applied, and requests additional time to work toward reunification. Upon our
review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This family originally came to the attention of the Iowa Department of
Health and Human Services (department) in 2018, due to the parents’
substance use, which resulted in A.S.’s removal. That case closed in 2020.
The family most recently came to the department’s attention in August 2024,
due to concerns related to the mother’s methamphetamine use and domestic
violence between the parents.2 A.S. was removed from parental custody and
adjudicated a child in need of assistance. He was initially placed with his adult
sister for several weeks, and then he was moved to the home of his biological
sister’s adoptive aunt and uncle, where he has remained.

Reunification services were initiated. Over the next year, the court
received evidence of the mother’s progress and the child’s placement
stability at dispositional and permanency hearings. During that time, the
department reported ongoing substance-use concerns for the mother. The
department documented multiple positive tests for methamphetamine and
amphetamine through 2025, while the mother continued to dispute use.

1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
2
The mother was arrested after she stabbed the father outside the family home.
The parents acknowledged being under the influence of methamphetamine at the time.

2
The State petitioned to terminate parental rights in November 2025.
The termination hearing took place in December. Leading up to trial, the
mother was engaged in outpatient substance-use treatment and
mental-health services, and she complied with drug-testing requirements; a
sweat patch reported December 11, 2025, was negative for
methamphetamine and amphetamine. The department caseworker detailed
the mother’s prior positive results, including one in late September 2025.
The caseworker opined the mother’s continued denial of use impeded
meaningful insight and sustained sobriety.

Meanwhile, A.S. adjusted well in his placement. Reports described the
placement as providing consistency and stability. By the termination hearing,
the concurrent plan recommended adoption by the current caretakers. A.S.
communicated his views to the guardian ad litem, acknowledging sadness
about the recommendation but indicating agreement with termination and
with the understanding that the plan was adoption in his present home.

The court entered an order terminating the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f ), and (l) (2025). The mother
appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory
grounds, asserting termination is contrary to A.S.’s best interests, urging
application of a permissive exception based on a parent-child bond, and
requesting an additional six months to work toward reunification.

II. Analysis

We conduct our review of termination‑of‑parental‑rights proceedings
de novo, considering whether (1) the State has proven a statutory ground for
termination, (2) termination advances the child’s best interests, and (3) any
statutory exception should nonetheless preclude termination. See In re L.B.,

3
970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022); Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3). The mother’s
claims implicate each step of this framework.

A. Grounds for Termination

The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights on three
statutory grounds, but we may affirm if one ground is supported by the
record. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 313 (Iowa 2021). On appeal, the mother
only challenges the grounds under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) and
232.116(1)(l). As the mother has not raised an issue under
section 232.116(1)(f ), she has waived any claim of error on that section.
Accordingly, we affirm termination of her parental rights under
section 232.116(1)(f ).

B. Best Interests

Termination must also serve the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). When determining best interests, we give primary weight 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
conditions and needs of the child.” Id.; accord In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 528
(Iowa 2019).

The mother highlights recent progress but continues to minimize her
methamphetamine addiction. Her continued substance use and lack of a
sustained path to sobriety not only fails to provide a safe and stable home for
A.S. but also casts doubt on any long‑term capacity to provide the
consistency and care necessary for his healthy development. Relevant
considerations include the mother’s ongoing inability to secure steady
employment, her justifications for failed drug tests, and her persistent
contact with known drug users both inside and outside her residence.

4
Further, the mother’s own pending criminal matters—including multiple
missed court dates—raises additional concern.

We “cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved
a ground for termination . . . by hoping someday a parent will learn 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) (quoting In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa
2010)). A.S. has a stable environment. A.S. has integrated with his current
placement and considers himself a part of their family unit. Termination of
the mother’s parental rights serves the child’s best interests.

C. Permissive Exception to Termination

Once the State has proven grounds for termination, the burden shifts
to the parent to prove a permissive exception under section 232.116(3). In re
A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475–76 (Iowa 2018). The mother argues that the
closeness of her bond with the child should lead the court to invoke an
exception to termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). But our focus must
remain on whether termination would harm the child and whether any such
harm outweighs the mother’s inability to meet A.S.’s ongoing developmental
needs.

The mother points to stability in her current housing situation as a
positive factor. But she also admits that she is currently subsisting on money
being given to her by relatives and charitable groups. This is not sustainable.
This combined with her unaddressed, decades-long addiction substantially
outweighs any asserted benefit of maintaining the legal relationship. A.S. is
thriving in a stable and secure placement that meets his emotional and
developmental needs, and the mother has not shown that “termination
would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the

5
parent-child relationship.” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021)
(quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). We conclude application of this
permissive exception is unwarranted.

D. Additional Time for Reunification Efforts

The mother also contends the court should have granted her a six-
month extension “for continued work and planning for return.” See Iowa
Code §§ 232.117(5), 232.104(2)(b) (permitting the court to grant an
extension to work toward reunification if “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”). The court found that a six-month extension would not
change the outcome.

The mother highlights a negative drug test from December 2025. But
the record reflects a repeated pattern of negative tests followed by later
positives, including a confirmed positive test in late September 2025. Each
positive drug test was followed by explanations that ranged from unlikely to
highly improbable—such as attributing results to eating certain foods or
taking over‑the‑counter medications. Because the mother has not
acknowledged the underlying issue, granting further time would not remedy
the barriers to reunification. We, like the district court, decline to grant an
extension of time for reunification efforts.

III. Conclusion

Having determined that the statutory grounds for termination are met,
termination serves the child’s best interests, the application of a permissive
exception is unwarranted, and an extension of time for reunification efforts

6
should not be granted on this record, we affirm the termination of the
mother’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

7