In the Interest of R.S.-M., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 26-0419
Filed May 27, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of R.S.-M., Minor Child,
E.M., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon County,
The Honorable Ashley West-Joons, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Jonathan James Mailander, Mailander Law, Atlantic, attorney for appellant
mother.

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

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

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.

1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

The mother1 appeals the termination of her parental rights to R.S.-M.,
born in 2022. On appeal, the mother argues termination is not in the child’s
best interests and that a permissive exception should be applied. 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 Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) in October 2023. HHS received a referral alleging
the mother and her paramour were using methamphetamine while caring for
the children. 2 A safety plan was put in place where the child was placed with
the paramour’s mother. Both the mother and paramour tested positive for
methamphetamine.

The next month, the State filed a petition alleging the children to be
children in need of assistance (CINA). The petition related to R.S.-M.
alleged grounds under Iowa Code sections 232.96A(3)(b) and (16)(d) (2023).
In December 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated the children to be CINA.
R.S.-M. was placed in the care of HHS. The juvenile court ordered the
mother to engage in substance use and mental health assessments.

By the time of the January 2024 disposition hearing, the mother had
completed the substance use evaluation but not the mental health
assessment. The substance use evaluation recommended intensive

1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated, but he did not appeal.
2
R.S.-M.’s sibling is not the subject of this appeal but references to children refer
to both R.S.-M. and the sibling.

2
outpatient treatment. The mother and her paramour admitted to use of
marijuana but not methamphetamine. Seemingly, progress was being made.

That progress unraveled in March 2024, however. HHS was
concerned that the mother’s parents—whom she was living with—were
using drugs in their home. Alternative housing was sought by HHS for the
mother. And the mother attended inpatient substance use treatment during
this time. But she was arrested for felony controlled-substance violations.
Both the mother and her paramour tested negative for controlled
substances—though HHS expressed concern that they used synthetic urine
for purposes of the testing.

In August 2024, the mother seemed to be making progress again. She
was employed full-time and had registered for some college courses. She
attended Narcotics Anonymous and substance use treatment. The mother
and her paramour found stable housing. Having had several negative drug
tests, the mother progressed to semi-supervised visitation with R.S.-M.. And
the mother received probation for her pending charges.

By October 2024, the mother had progressed to unsupervised visits
with the child. And the mother continued to attend some substance use
treatment as well as Narcotics Anonymous. But the mother refused to follow
the recommendation of her substance use evaluation for intensive outpatient
treatment. Of some concern to the juvenile court was that the mother was
not compliant with her medication for bipolar disorder. Additionally, the
mother was once again arrested on new criminal charges, and her previous
probation was revoked.

In December 2024, the mother was drug tested during a probation visit
and tested positive for the use of THC. Despite that, the mother was allowed

3
a weekend visit with the child. The mother also told HHS that her parents
no longer used controlled substances and requested that the child be able to
see her grandparents. But HHS later learned that the grandparents were
continuing to use methamphetamine and alcohol in the presence of the child.
HHS informed the mother not to allow the child to have contact with their
grandparents. Despite that directive, the mother continued to allow the
children to see their grandparents again after these warnings.

The mother then took the children on multiple trips to Omaha to visit
a friend. During these trips, the children were placed in a room with their
iPads while the adults used vapes and watched scary movies. One of these
trips led to R.S.-M. being left alone in a bathroom and cutting herself in the
face with a razor. Subsequently in March 2024, both the mother and her
paramour refused drug screenings. The mother’s unsupervised visitations
were then revoked and returned to supervised visits.

By the time of the August 2025 permanency hearing, progress had
completely stalled. The mother and her paramour were in danger of being
evicted because their employment was seasonal at best. Both refused drug
screens in July 2025. Given the lapse in progress, the juvenile court changed
the child’s permanency goal and ordered the State to file a termination of
parental rights (TPR) petition.

The State filed a petition in August 2025 alleging grounds for TPR
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2025) as to the mother’s parental
rights and under sections 232.116 (1)(b) and (1)(h) relating to the unknown
father of the child. The State then filed an amended petition alleging
additional TPR grounds under section 232.116(1)(h) as to the mother’s
paramour. After paternity testing revealed the paramour was not the child’s
father, the State moved to dismiss the TPR petition against him. Even after

4
the State filed the TPR petition, the mother again tested positive for
methamphetamine in both October and November. The matter proceeded to
a TPR hearing in January 2026. After the hearing, the juvenile court granted
the State’s TPR petition.3 The mother now appeals.

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
Our review follows a three-step analysis in reviewing the termination
of a parent’s rights. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). First, we
consider whether statutory grounds for termination of the parent’s rights
exist under Iowa Code section 232.116(1). Id. Second, we look to whether
termination of the parent’s rights is in the children’s best interests. Id.
(following Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third, we consider whether any of the
exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3) should be applied. Id. But
when the parent does not raise a claim relating to any of the three steps, we
need not address that step and instead limit our review to the specific claims
presented. See id. at 40 (recognizing we need not consider a step the parent
does not challenge).

3
The juvenile court’s order states the State proved the alleged grounds under Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(h) as to both the mother and the unknown father, but the order
also states the unknown father’s parental rights were terminated under
section 232.116(1)(b). Because the father does not appeal and is not a party to this appeal,
that issue is not before us.

5
I. Best Interests

We begin by considering whether termination was in the child’s best
interests. 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 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).

Here, the mother had continued mental health and substance use
concerns. The substance use concerns, including the use of
methamphetamine even after the TPR petition was filed, and the dangerous
positions that the mother put the child in, such as being left unsupervised in
Omaha, weigh heavily towards finding termination is in R.S.-M.’s best
interests. See In re J.P., No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
Jan. 9, 2020) (“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.”).

Additionally, the mother’s inconsistent substance use treatment and
total refusal to participate in mental health treatment weigh in favor of
termination. Because the mother’s mental-health concerns remain
unaddressed, “[w]e do not gamble with the children’s future by asking them
to continuously wait for a stable biological parent, particularly at such tender
ages.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (cleaned up).

6
Accordingly, we find termination of the mother’s parental rights was in R.S.-
M.’s best interest.

II. Permissive Exception

Next, the mother argues the juvenile court erred by not applying a
permissive exception to termination. She argues that the permissive
exception in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) applies because there is a close
parent-child relationship between the mother and child. The parent claiming
the exception has the burden to prove it should apply. In re A.S., 906
N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). Our review of the record shows the child has
been removed from the mother’s care for two years. While some progress
was made during visits, it was not conclusive to show that there was a
sufficiently close bond. And when considered in the context of the harm the
child suffered during visits with the mother, including being cut with a razor
and being exposed to controlled substances, we are skeptical that the record
demonstrates a close bond between the mother and child.

And in applying the exception in section 232.116(3)(c), the
“consideration must center on whether the child will be disadvantaged by
termination, and whether the disadvantage overcomes [the parent’s] inability
to provide for [the child’s] developing needs.” See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 709.
We conclude that the child should not be denied permanency after more than
two years out of the mother’s care. The child’s need for permanency
“overrides any harm they will experience as a result of the relationship with
their parents being severed.” In re M.R., No. 25-1414, 2025 WL 3171421,
at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2025). So, we do not find the mother has met
her burden to show the permissive exception should be applied.

7
CONCLUSION
Because we find termination is in the child’s best interests and the
mother has not established the permissive exception in Iowa Code
section 232.116(3)(c) applies, we affirm the termination of the mother’s
parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

8