In the Interest of A.C., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1992
Filed April 1, 2026
_______________

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

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County,
The Honorable Steven J. Holwerda, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Meegan M. Keller of Keller Law Office, Altoona, attorney for appellant
mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Ling Harl of Harl Law PLLC, Ankeny, attorney and guardian ad litem for
minor child.
_______________

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

1
SANDY, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child,
arguing termination is not in the child’s best interests, and alternatively, that
a permissive exception to termination should apply. We affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE
This case arises from a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) case and
subsequent termination-of-parental-rights proceeding involving A.C., born
in February 2020. The family first came to the attention of the Department
of Health and Human Services in September 2024 due to concerns relating
to the mother’s substance use and her ability to safely care for the child. At
that time, the mother had been unsuccessfully discharged from substance-
use treatment, was reportedly continuing to use illegal substances, and had
left the child in the care of the maternal grandmother while her own
whereabouts were unknown.

The child was removed from the mother’s custody that month and
placed in the father’s custody, where she has remained throughout these
proceedings. The State filed a CINA petition shortly thereafter, and the child
was adjudicated in need of assistance in November 2024. At disposition in
January 2025, the juvenile court continued the child’s placement in the
father’s custody. The mother was permitted supervised visitation and
required to participate in services, including substance-use evaluation and
treatment, drug testing, and other rehabilitative support.

Over the ensuing months, the mother was offered visitation and the
aforementioned services aimed at reunification. Despite these efforts, her
participation was inconsistent. She did not successfully complete
recommended substance-use treatment, failed to appear for requested drug

2
testing, and maintained only sporadic contact with both the child and service
providers. Visitation never progressed beyond a supervised setting. The case
proceeded through periodic review hearings in March and July, followed by
a permanency hearing in September. In October, the State filed a petition
seeking termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1) (2025).1

The termination hearing was held on October 31. The mother
appeared with counsel. The court heard testimony from the assigned social
worker and the mother. The juvenile court received several exhibits into
evidence. At the time of the hearing, the mother was incarcerated on drug-
related charges and had not engaged in treatment, although she indicated an
intention to reenter treatment.

On November 10, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the
mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f ), and
(g), finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established, that
termination was in the child’s best interests, and that no permissive exception
should be applied. The court further ordered that the child remain in the
father’s custody under departmental supervision. The mother filed a notice
of appeal on November 24, seeking reversal of the termination order.
Although the petition on appeal was filed one day after the jurisdictional
deadline, the supreme court granted a delayed appeal upon finding the delay
was negligible and not attributable to the mother.

1
The petition did not specify which subsections of section 232.116(1) that the
State was seeking termination under but did allege facts supporting termination.

3
ON APPEAL, THE MOTHER CHALLENGES WHETHER
TERMINATION WAS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS
AND CONTENDS THE JUVENILE COURT SHOULD
HAVE DECLINED TERMINATION IN FAVOR OF
ALTERNATIVE PERMANENCY OPTIONS, INCLUDING
CONTINUED PLACEMENT IN THE FATHER’S
CUSTODY.STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re
W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021). While not binding on us, we give
weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings, “particularly with respect to
credibility determinations.” Id.

DISCUSSION
The juvenile court follows a three-step analysis in determining the
merits for terminating a parent’s rights. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39
(Iowa 2010). First, it considers whether statutory grounds for termination of
the parent’s rights exist under Iowa Code section 232.116(1). Id. Second, it
looks to whether termination of the parent’s rights is in the child’s best
interests. Id. Third, it considers whether any of the exceptions to termination
in section 232.116(3) should be applied. Id. If the parent does not challenge
every step on appeal, we need not address any unchallenged step and instead
will limit our review to the specific claims presented. See id. at 40. Here, the
mother does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination, so we do
not address that step.

Because the mother only challenges the juvenile court’s best-interests
determination, we limit our discussion to that issue. To determine whether
termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, we must “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

4
physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa
Code § 232.116(2). “We also look to the child’s long-range as well as
immediate interests. . . . [W]e look to the parents’ past performance because
it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the
future.” In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020) (cleaned up).

Upon reviewing the record, we find that termination was in the child’s
best interests. This finding is supported by the record, including the child’s
thirteen-month removal with no trial home placements, the mother’s
continued illegal drug use, unsuccessful discharges from both outpatient and
inpatient treatment, seven missed drug screens, incarceration at the time of
hearing, sporadic supervised-only visitation, unstable housing, periods of
unknown whereabouts, and the caseworker’s testimony that the child could
not be returned to the mother then or within six months.

To the extent the mother is arguing a permissive exception exists under
section 232.116(3)(a) because the father has custody of the child, we are
likewise unpersuaded. The juvenile court found:
Although the Court could exercise this right in this case under Section
232.116(3)(a) (a relative has legal custody of the child), it declines to do so.
It is clear that the mother cannot provide for the child anytime in the
foreseeable future. The father, by himself, has provided stability for this
child for the past thirteen months, and the child is doing well. The Court
will not deprive the child of this continued stability, which can only be
accomplished if the mother ceases to be the child’s legal parent.

We agree with the juvenile court.2 Although the father retained custody of
A.C. and the child demonstrated stability and well-being in the father’s

2
To the extent the mother relies on Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c)—“clear and
convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child . . . due to the
closeness of the parent-child relationship”—we conclude that any bond the mother shares

5
home, the mother’s ongoing inability to provide care means termination of
her rights should not “be countermanded by the ability and willingness of a
family relative to take the child.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475 (Iowa 2018)
(citation omitted).

In sum, the juvenile court correctly found statutory grounds for
termination existed, properly determined termination served the child’s best
interests, and soundly declined to apply permissive exceptions; its order
terminating the mother’s parental rights and maintaining the child in the
father’s custody under protective supervision is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

with the child is not enough to preclude termination because of her inability to address the
issues that led to the child’s removal.

6