In the Interest of W.C. and G.C., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-1392
Filed November 13, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF W.C and G.C.,
Minor Children,

S.V., Mother,
Appellant,

N.C., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington,

Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental

rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant

mother.

Barbara E. Maness, Davenport, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

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

Ahlers, JJ.
2

GREER, Presiding Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental

rights to two children W.C. (born in 2016) and G.C. (born in 2018). The mother

argues that (1) the State failed to meet its burden under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(e), (f), (k), and (l) (2025), and (2) the court erred by not finding

that an exception to termination, an extension of time, or a guardianship was in the

children’s best interests. The father argues the State did not prove that (1) the

children could not have been returned home at the time of termination or within a

reasonable amount of time, and (2) termination of parental rights is in the best

interests of the children. We affirm the termination of the mother’s and father’s

parental rights to W.C. and G.C.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The family became involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) most recently in January 2024. Police responded to a domestic-

violence incident between the mother and father. W.C. and an older paternal half

sibling were present during the incident.1 G.C. was not present. It was reported

to police that the father strangled the mother and pushed her over a second-story

railing. Soon after, there was a warrant for the father’s arrest for domestic abuse

assault.

In February, HHS began offering services to the mother, and she was

cooperating. The father was not responsive to services offered by HHS and was

not taking accountability for his actions. The mother moved to a different town to

1 The older half sibling is the father’s child and is not involved in these termination

proceedings.
3

distance herself from the father, but, in March, she reported that he had visited her

and the children in their new home despite a no-contact order between her and

him.

On April 16, the mother reported to HHS that she would not be continuing

to cooperate with services or allowing HHS to have access to the children. A child

in need of assistance (CINA) petition was filed. The mother was served, but the

father avoided service. In May, the mother tried to run over the father while the

children were in the vehicle. This incident resulted in a founded child abuse report,

and the mother was arrested. On May 30, the juvenile court issued an ex parte

removal order, and the children were removed from parental custody and placed

in relative care.

In June, the mother checked herself in for inpatient mental-health treatment

and tested positive for amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, and benzodiazepines.

On June 11, the children were adjudicated CINA due to domestic violence and a

lack of supervision, and the juvenile court noted substance abuse as a concern.

In August, the juvenile court authorized another ex parte removal order, and the

children were placed in the custody of HHS for placement in family foster care.

That same month, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine.

Throughout the timeline of this case, the mother began and failed to

complete several substance-use treatment programs. In March 2025, the mother

tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine. In May, the mother gave birth

to another child, whose umbilical cord tested positive for methamphetamine.

On May 29, a petition for termination of the mother’s and father’s parental

rights was filed. In June and July, the mother missed six drug tests scheduled by
4

HHS and gave no reason for failing to complete testing. The mother’s July 22 drug

test was positive for cocaine. That day, the mother entered inpatient substance-

use treatment. During this time, the mother self-reported irregular participation in

mental-health treatment, and she was not consistently taking mental-health

medication.

The mother’s visitation with the children while they were in HHS custody

was inconsistent. The mother routinely missed visits with the children, claiming

illness or appointments for her new child. The mother did not provide proper

documentation to HHS for her missed visits. The mother missed three visits in a

row in June. The mother had only attended about “50% of the visits” scheduled

for her and the children.

Turning to the history involving the father, he has not seen the children since

their removal in May 2024. In November of that year, he was incarcerated in part

for abusing the mother and violating the no-contact order. He remained

incarcerated through the time of the termination hearing. Prior to his incarceration

he had few interactions with HHS and failed to take accountability for his actions

or participate in services offered to him.

In August, a termination hearing was held. At the hearing, the HHS social

work case manager testified that she had spoken with the father, and he stated

that he was on the waitlist to begin domestic violence services.

After the hearing, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s rights to both

children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), (k), and (l). The court also

terminated the father’s parental rights to both children pursuant to Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(b), (e) and (f). Both parents appeal.
5

II. Standard of Review.

Our review is de novo. In re J.R., 20 N.W.3d 839, 843 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025).

And “[w]hile we are not bound by the juvenile court's factual findings, we accord

them weight, especially in assessing witness credibility.” In re J.H., 952

N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2020). Our primary concern is the children’s best interests.

In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).

III. Analysis.

We consider each appeal separately because “each parent's parental rights

are separate adjudications, both factually and legally.” J.H., 952 N.W.2d at 171.

A. Mother’s Appeal.

The mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination and alleges

that the juvenile court failed to find an exception to termination, or an extension of

time, or that guardianship was in the children’s best interests.

1. Statutory Grounds.2 The juvenile court terminated the mother's parental

rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e), (f), (k), and (l). “When the juvenile

court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm

the juvenile court's order on any ground we find supported by the record.” In re

A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We choose to review termination under

section 232.116(1)(f), which allows the court to terminate when the children are

2 The father attempts to argue that his rights should not have been terminated in

part because the children could have been returned to the mother at the time of
the termination. Each parent has a separate adjudication of their rights, and one
cannot assert an argument on behalf of the other. In re D.G., 704 N.W.2d 454,
460 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). The father does “not have standing to assert” that the
children could have been returned to the mother’s care “in an effort to reverse the
termination of [his] parental rights.” In re P.R.K., No. 18-0218, 2018 WL 1633526,
at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018).
6

four years of age or older, have been adjudicated as children in need of assistance,

and have been removed from the physical custody of the parent for at least twelve

of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial

period at home has been less than thirty days. And it must be shown that there is

clear and convincing evidence that the children cannot be returned to the custody

of the parent at the present time, which means the time of the termination trial.

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f). The mother only challenges the finding that the

children could not be returned to her at the time of the hearing. The mother alleges

the children could have stayed with her at the inpatient treatment center. Although

the mother had a place for the children to live, she had not done the work to show

she could provide a safe, long-term home.

Here, the mother had just recently availed herself of another treatment

facility and when her baby was born in May 2025, the tests showed exposure to

methamphetamine. “We have long recognized that an unresolved, severe, and

chronic drug addiction can render a parent unfit to raise children.” A.B., 815

N.W.2d at 776; see also In re J.P., No. 19–1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *2 (Iowa Ct.

App. Jan. 9, 2020) (“Methamphetamine is a scourge. . . . A parent’s

methamphetamine use, in itself, creates a dangerous environment for children.”

(cleaned up)). Thus, with unresolved substance-use issues and several previous

failed courses of treatment, the State met the burden to show the children could

not safely be returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination trial.

In July, the Foster Care Review Board recommended termination of the

mother’s parental rights “due to limited progress by [the mother]” including her

inability to maintain sobriety. Commendably, the mother enrolled herself into
7

inpatient substance-use treatment on July 22. But, that same day, she tested

positive for cocaine. At the time of the termination hearing, she had only been in

treatment for a few weeks and had previously never successfully completed a

substance abuse treatment program.

The mother has had over a year to address her substance use and a

showing of a short period of treatment preceding the hearing is not enough to

prevent termination. In re R.M.-V., 13 N.W.3d 620, 626 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024)

(holding a mother’s short stint of sobriety prior to the termination hearing did not

render her fit to resume custody of her child). As the district court noted, the

mother’s new substance-use treatment “is a very positive step for her and her new

baby, but [W.C] and [G.C.] have already been waiting for far too long.” The mother

had not yet established sustained sobriety, so we affirm the juvenile court’s

determination that the grounds for termination under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f) were met. Because we affirm on this statutory ground, we

need not consider the mother’s other statutory ground challenges. In re A.B., 815

N.W.2d at 774.

2. Best Interests. The mother challenges whether termination is in the

children’s best interests. When determining children’s best interests, we “give

primary consideration to the child[ren]’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[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2); accord

In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). We consider the children’s long-range

and immediate interests. J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 798. “It is simply not in the best
8

interests of children to continue to keep them in temporary foster homes while the

natural parents get their lives together.” Id. (citation omitted).

The children have improved in school and behaviorally since being removed

from parental custody. The children’s court appointed special advocate and

guardian ad litem (GAL) also recommended termination of parental rights. The

mother has had over a year to achieve sobriety and stability and she has been

unable to do so. “Children simply cannot wait for responsible parenting.” Id.

(citation omitted). Because these children require and deserve structure and

consistency, we find it is in their best interests to terminate the mother’s parental

rights.

3. Parent-Child Bond. The mother asserts that her rights cannot be

terminated because an exception exists “due to the closeness of the parent-child

relationship.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The burden rests on the mother to

prove an exception by clear and convincing evidence that any disadvantage to the

children from termination overcomes her inability to care for their needs. In re A.S.,

906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). Under this section, grounds that preclude

termination are permissive and not mandatory. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113

(Iowa 2014). “[O]ur consideration must center on whether the child will be

disadvantaged by termination, and whether the disadvantage overcomes [the

mother's] inability to provide for [the children’s] developing needs.” In re D.W., 791

N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010).

As the GAL and district court noted, “The children are bonded to their

mother and will suffer if the petition to terminate parental rights is granted, but it is

necessary to do so.” At the time of the termination hearing the mother had only
9

just begun her substance-use treatment and had not yet adequately addressed

her mental health. On top of that, the mother had missed many of the scheduled

visits with the children. The mother has not met her burden of proof to establish

an exception to termination. We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to not apply

the permissive exception under section 232.116(3)(c).

4. Additional Time. The mother argues additional time in lieu of termination

is in the children’s best interests. This is an option available to us under Iowa Code

section 232.117(5), which permits the juvenile court to deny termination and enter

a permanency order pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104. Under

section 232.104(2)(b), the court may authorize a six-month extension of time if “the

need for removal of the child[ren] from the child[ren]’s home will no longer exist at

the end of the additional six-month period.” But 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.” A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 112. Patience for parents attempting to remedy

their parenting skills is already built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232. In

re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494–95 (Iowa 2000) (noting that after “the limitation

period lapses, termination proceedings must be viewed with a sense of urgency”).

In the July 2025 report, HHS noted that the mother still required fully

supervised visits with the children and she “[had] low stability with housing,

employment, safety, and sobriety.” HHS did “not believe that additional time or

services would remedy the adjudicatory risk of harm” in this case. In August 2025,

the GAL reported that the mother is no “closer now to being able to safely care for

the children than [she was] when the CINA petition was filed.” Due to the mother’s
10

lack of progress, we cannot find that the risk of adjudicatory harm to the children

will not be present in six months. We affirm the juvenile court.

5. Guardianship. The mother requests guardianship with a family member

instead of termination. To establish the guardianship, the court must determine by

clear and convincing evidence that “termination of the parent-child relationship

would not be in the best interest of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.104(4)(a).

Guardianship is not preferrable to permanency for the children. See A.S., 906

N.W.2d at 477 (“[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to

termination” (citation omitted)). A primary concern for children’s best interests is

their “safety and need for a permanent home.” In re K.M., 653 N.W.2d 602, 608

(Iowa 2002).

As noted by the GAL, no placement option for guardianship exists. Previous

placements with the mother’s family members had only lasted, at most, a few

weeks, and the GAL could not recommend placement with the father’s family

either. The children made improvements in their education and behaviors since

entering foster care. Termination of the mother’s rights will provide the stability

and permanency these children need and deserve. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 478.

B. Father’s Appeal.

First, the father argues the State failed to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that the children could not have been returned home at the time of

termination or within a reasonable amount of time. The court terminated the

father's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (f). The

father’s petition fails to challenge termination under section 232.116(1)(b), which

requires the State to prove by “clear and convincing evidence that the child has
11

been abandoned or deserted.” Thus, the father waived his claim that termination

was improper under this section. See In re S.R., No. 03-1332, 2003 WL 22700899,

at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2003) (holding a father waived error by not

challenging all statutory grounds for termination found by the juvenile court).

Because we only need to find termination on one ground when multiple sections

are cited, A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 774, and the father waived his challenge under

section 232.116(1)(b), we affirm the juvenile court on this issue.

Second, the father asserts that it would be in the best interests of the

children for them to be placed in a guardianship with their paternal aunt. As noted

above, a guardianship is not legally preferable to termination of parental rights.

A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477. To establish the guardianship, the court must determine

by clear and convincing evidence that “termination of the parent-child relationship

would not be in the best interest of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.104(4)(a). In

determining the best interests of children, we consider the long-term and

immediate interests of the children. J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 798.

The father did not participate in services with HHS and did not see the

children after they were removed from parental custody. As the juvenile court

noted, he did not show “a desire to care for the children until after he was arrested.”

The GAL described the father as “violent and abusive” and “not a safe parent.” We

find termination is in the children’s best interests. The father suggests the children

be placed with their paternal aunt, but the guardian ad litem could not recommend

placement with her as she was previously unwilling to have the children in her care.

We affirm the decision of the juvenile court on this issue.
12

IV. Conclusion.

For the above reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of both the

mother’s and father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.