In the Interest of A.B. and M.B., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1956
Filed February 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of A.B. and M.B., Minor Children,
J.C., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County,
The Honorable Charles D. Fagan, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Matthew J. Hudson, Harlan, attorney for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

William T. Early, Harlan, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

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

1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A mother appeals1 the termination of her parental rights to A.B. (born
2018) and M.B. (born 2021). She argues (1) there was insufficient evidence
supporting the grounds for termination, (2) the State failed to make
reasonable reunification efforts, (3) termination of her parental rights is not
in the best interests of the children, and (4) the State failed to prove that the
children could not be returned to the mother at the time of termination.
Upon our review, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) in May 2024 when they received a report that
the mother was using methamphetamine in the presence of one of the
children. The report indicated the mother was unresponsive in her front yard
and at some point, ran towards the home and shoved the child to the ground.

HHS implemented a safety plan that placed the children with their
maternal grandparents. The mother was admitted to the hospital where she
tested positive for benzodiazepines, amphetamines, and THC.

In June 2024, the mother left the state to attend a funeral. At this time,
HHS was unable to contact her. When the mother returned the call to HHS
she informed them that she attempted suicide by overdose and had a mental
breakdown due to the death in her family. When asked about pushing the
child, the mother justified the behavior by stating she did not want the child
to see her being arrested and told the child protective worker (CPW) “any
parent would do the same.” The mother also refused to complete drug

1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.

2
screenings and failed to provide the CPW with her medical marijuana card or
contact information for the children’s father. This resulted in a founded child
protective assessment.

The following month, the State filed a petition alleging A.B. and M.B.
to be children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code section
232.96A(2), (7), and (10) (2024). The juvenile court adjudicated the children
to be CINA and ordered them placed in the custody of HHS for placement
with the maternal grandparents. The court also ordered HHS to provide the
mother with services including substance use and mental health evaluation
and treatment.

By September 2024, the mother had made little progress. She was in
communication with HHS and was diagnosed with depression, anxiety,
psychotic, and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was compliant with her
prescription medication and continued to deny she used illegal controlled
substances. However, she was not currently attending therapy as
recommended. The mother also attributed shoving her child to a “bad
reaction” to her prescription medication. And she had not completed the
substance use or mental health evaluations ordered by the juvenile court.
The mother also refused to sign release forms for HHS to access information.
The juvenile court found reunification remained the permanency goal for the
children.

In January 2025, the juvenile court held a review hearing. The mother
had not completed any of HHS’s requested drug screenings. She indicated
she had completed her mental health and substance use evaluations and
indicated she was seeking inpatient mental health treatment. However, she
did not sign the release of information, so HHS was unable to confirm
whether she had actually completed these screenings. Due to this lack of

3
progress, the juvenile court then changed the permanency goal to
reunification or termination of parental rights.

The mother’s progress unraveled in April 2025, when the Shelby
County Sheriff's Office was called to the maternal grandparents’ home
because the mother had gotten into a verbal altercation. The mother was
then arrested for an active warrant for child endangerment that stemmed
from the incident that led to HHS’s involvement in this case. Law
enforcement reports indicate the mother was intoxicated or in poor mental
health during her arrest as she tried to get away from officers, and she head-
butted a dresser within the home once restrained.

And progress continued to further unravel by the May 2025
permanency hearing. For much of the pendency of this case, the mother had
been staying with her parents in Earling, Iowa, but they asked her to leave.
So, the mother then began staying with a friend. The mother remained
unemployed for the entirety of the CINA matter. HHS was unable to confirm
if the mother followed through on inpatient treatment or mental health and
substance use evaluations. She had also continued not to submit to drug
testing. Citing concerns regarding the children’s safety given the mother’s
mental health and substance use concerns, and the mother’s lack of
consistent participation in services, the juvenile court changed the
permanency goals for the children to termination of parental rights.

In June 2025, the State filed a petition to terminate both the mother’s
and father’s parental rights. The petition alleged statutory grounds under
Iowa code sections 232.116(1)(e), (f ), and (l) (2025). After a hearing, the
juvenile court granted the State’s petition. The mother now appeals.

4
STANDARD AND SCOPE 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.

“Our review of termination of parental rights under Iowa Code
chapter 232 is a three-step analysis.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219
(Iowa 2016). First, we “determine whether any ground for termination
under section 232.116(1) has been established.” Id. If we conclude
affirmatively, we next “determine whether the best-interest framework as laid
out in section 232.116(2) supports the termination of parental rights.” Id.
at 219–20. If we conclude section 232.116(2) supports termination, “we
consider whether any exceptions in section 232.116(3) apply to preclude
termination of parental rights.” Id. at 220. “However, if a parent does not
challenge a step in our analysis, we need not address it.” In re J.P.,
No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

DISCUSSION
I. Statutory Grounds

We begin with the grounds for termination.2 When the district court
terminates an individual’s parental rights on more than one statutory ground,

2
In Issue II of the mother’s petition, it states the issue as “Did the trial court err
in terminating the father’s parental rights[?]” We believe the mother was seeking to
challenge the grounds supporting the termination of her parental rights. To the extent she
is challenging the termination of the father’s parental rights, she lacks the standing to do
so. See In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020) (“Dad does not have standing to
contest termination of Mom’s parental rights.”).

5
we may affirm termination on any one of the cited grounds we find supported
in the record. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012).

Under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), a parent’s parental rights may
be terminated if (1) the child has been adjudicated to be a CINA, (2) the child
has been removed from the parent’s physical custody of for at least six
consecutive months, and (3) the parent had not maintained significant and
meaningful contact with the child during the previous six consecutive
months and made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite
being given the opportunity to do so. Defining significant and meaningful
contact, Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e)(3) states:
For the purposes of this subparagraph, “significant and meaningful
contact” includes but is not limited to the affirmative assumption by the
parents of the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. This
affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations, requires continued
interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities
prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain
communication with the child, and requires that the parents establish and
maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.

The children were adjudicated as CINA under Iowa Code sections
232.96A(2), (7), and (10) on August 21, 2024. And at the time of
termination, the children had been removed from the mother’s physical
custody for more than fifteen months. So, we find clear and convincing
evidence supports the first two elements.

We also find the mother has not maintained significant and meaningful
contact with the children despite being given opportunity to do so.
Throughout the fifteen months the underlying case was active, the mother
never graduated from supervised visitation. She was absent from Iowa for
four consecutive months and regularly left Iowa for Oklahoma. Further, her
continued refusal to actively cooperate with HHS demonstrates her lack of

6
commitment to the permanency plan. See In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 437
(Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (affirming termination under paragraph (e) where
parent did not address “substance abuse or mental health issues, and have
not made a genuine effort to address these issues”). While the mother’s
substance use and mental health concerns remain and she has not taken an
active approach to addressing these concerns, we find the grounds for
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) were established.
Accordingly, we affirm and do not address the other grounds for termination
that the juvenile court relied on. See A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 774.

II. Reasonable Efforts

Next, we address the mother’s claim that the State failed to make
reasonable efforts to reunify the children with the mother. The State has a
duty to make “reasonable efforts” towards reunification by working “to
preserve and unify a family prior to the out-of-home placement of a child in
foster care or to eliminate the need for removal of the child or make it possible
for the child to safely return to the family’s home.” Iowa Code
§ 232.102A(1)(a). But “parents have a responsibility to object when they
claim the nature or extent of services is inadequate. A parent’s objection to
the sufficiency of services should be made early in the process so appropriate
changes can be made.” In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 839–40 (Iowa
2017) (cleaned up). Upon our review of the record, we find the mother never
objected or otherwise brought the issue of reasonable efforts to the attention
of the juvenile court, and even on appeal has not identified any services she
was not provided. Therefore, we find the mother failed to preserve error on
this issue.

7
III. Best Interests

Finally, we consider whether termination was in the children’s best
interests. In doing so, 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).

We “look to the child’s long-range as well as immediate interests.”
J.H., 952 N.W.2d at 171 (citation omitted). The best-interests analysis
requires we look to “what the future holds for the child if returned to the
parents. When making this decision, we look to the parents’ past
performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable
of providing in the future.” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, the mother has had continued mental health and substance use
concerns. The substance use concerns, and the children’s exposure to
methamphetamine alone weighs towards finding termination is in the
children’s best interests. See J.P., 2020 WL 110425, at *2 (“A parent’s
methamphetamine use, in itself, creates a dangerous environment for
children.”); In re K.L., No. 17-0346, 2017 WL 2465817, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
June 7, 2017) (“Methamphetamine is a scourge.”).

Further, over the course of this case, the juvenile court has ordered the
mother to participate in mental health and substance use evaluations and
treatment. The mother has not meaningfully participated in drug testing as
requested by HHS. Additionally, she has told the juvenile court on multiple
occasions that she participated in evaluations, but she refused to sign releases
for HHS to be able verify that information. And the mother has never
acknowledged that her methamphetamine use led her to push her child to the
ground, and that lack of acceptance weighs in favor of termination being in

8
the children’s best interest. See In re H.R.K., 433 N.W.2d 46, 50 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1988) (“[T]he requirement that the parents acknowledge and recognize
the abuse before any meaningful change can occur is essential in meeting the
child’s needs.”). The children reside together with their maternal
grandparents who are willing to serve as a permanent home for both children.
We find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best
interests.

CONCLUSION
Upon our review, we find clear and convincing evidence supports
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), termination is in the
children’s best interests, and the mother did not preserve error on her
reasonable efforts argument. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the
mother’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

9