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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 26-0617
Filed June 24, 2026
_______________

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

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Van Buren County,
The Honorable Patrick J. McAvan, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Patricia J. Lipski, Washington, attorney for appellant mother.

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

Kimberly A. Auge of The Auge Law Firm, Fort Madison, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
_______________

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

1
TABOR, Chief Judge.

A mother, Angela, appeals the termination of her parental rights to
M.M., her thirteen-year-old son, and K.B., her nine-year-old daughter. 1
Angela does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination. See Iowa
Code § 232.116(1)(f ) (2025). Rather, she argues that: (1) termination is not
in the children’s best interests, and (2) termination will be harmful to M.M.
and K.B. because of their strong bond with her. See id. § 232.116(2), (3)(c).

But as the juvenile court aptly observed, “Angela fails to grasp or
acknowledge the trauma her absence had on each of her children.” Given that
trauma, preserving parental rights is not in the children’s best interests.
Likewise, Angela has not offered clear and convincing evidence that because
of the closeness of the parent-child relationships, termination would be
detrimental to her son and daughter. Thus, we affirm the juvenile court order.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

Angela admitted using methamphetamine while caring for M.M. and
K.B., including one week before giving birth to their younger sibling, J.B., in
January 2024. 2 To placate the department’s concerns, Angela claimed the
children were at school when she ingested methamphetamine—which she
admitted doing weekly. But her claim was doubtful because M.M. was not

1
M.M.’s father is deceased, and K.B.’s father does not appeal the termination of
his rights.
2
Angela told social workers that she didn’t know she was pregnant until she was
admitted to the hospital with abdominal pain. The Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services placed J.B. in foster care five days after his birth. He remained out of
Angela’s care through the termination of her parental rights in June 2025. He is not the
subject of this appeal.

2
attending school. 3 Still, the department worked with Angela to develop a
safety plan to ensure that her drug use did not endanger the children.
Regrettably, Angela recommended relatives whom she knew were not safe
caregivers.4 The children were in that home for about two weeks when the
relatives asked the department to remove them.

As the juvenile court explained, “[t]hus began a difficult and confusing
time for the children.” After the abrupt move from their uncle’s home, the
department placed the children with K.B.’s putative father. That placement
lasted only two days. Short on options, the department retained legal custody
but returned the children to Angela’s care in mid-March 2024. Ten days later,
she was evicted from her home. The family lived in a homeless shelter until
May when the department helped line up a rent-free apartment.5

But the children experienced more upheaval in August 2024 when
police arrested Angela on a warrant for failure to appear for her probation
hearing. Despite knowing about the warrant and being advised to plan for
K.B. and M.M., she had made no provision for the children’s care if she went
to jail. Police found the children home alone; M.M. was trying to prepare
something for his sister to eat—with few groceries on hand.

3
Because M.M. had behavioral issues, his school placed him on “pre-expulsion
status, whereby he [was] not permitted on school property.” He was supposed to
participate in online learning, but Angela did not enforce the educational requirements at
home, creating a “significant educational void” for the preteen.
4
The guardian ad litem (GAL) reported that Angela chose to place her children
with their uncle, who Angela later revealed had “molested her when she was young.”
5
Angela accessed services during this time, including a substance-use evaluation
that diagnosed her with cannabis- and amphetamine-use disorder. She tested negative for
drugs in April 2024.

3
After the welfare check, the children followed different trajectories.
K.B. moved in with the foster parents who were caring for her younger
brother. She found stability and comfort in their routines. The eight-year-old
reported being frightened by her mother not coming home from the
probation appointment and by a later visit behind plexiglass at the jail. K.B.
told her GAL that she did not want unsupervised visits with Angela. 6

By contrast, M.M. did not settle into foster care. In fact, his aggression
escalated while in shelter care, and the department transferred him to a
qualified residential treatment program (QRTP) in September 2024. The
QRTP was nearly five hours away from his mother’s home. But the
department believed it was the level of care he needed. As the GAL reported,
“This QRTP program will offer him the benefit of getting his education
(which was not occurring in his mother’s care), mental health services
(including [behavioral health intervention services]), and medication
management, as deemed necessary.” M.M. also received needed dental care
there; as the GAL described, his teeth were “in deplorable condition with
multiple cavities and abscess[es] which required medical treatment. After
surgery for the tooth issues, [M.M.] no longer has complaints about mouth
pain.”

Meanwhile, Angela struggled to engage in services. She tested positive
for methamphetamine in September 2024 and was unsuccessfully discharged
from treatment in October. She also faced a jail sentence for truancy and
driving under suspension. As the juvenile court noted, Angela later disclosed
that during that time she suffered “significant domestic violence”

6
K.B. was also reluctant to continue interactions with her brother, reporting that
he was “mean” and sometimes scared her.

4
perpetrated by J.B.’s father. She was hospitalized in November after J.B.’s
father rammed her with his truck.

During the early months of 2025, Angela had sporadic contact with the
department and virtually no interaction with her children. When M.M. tried
to call his mother from the QRTP, he would receive no answer. And Angela
had no in-person visits with K.B. after December 2024. The department
arranged two visits for K.B. while her mother was in jail, but the child refused
to go in and asked to go back to her foster home. And after that, K.B. told the
social workers that she didn’t want to see her mom. Angela’s only attempts
to reach out to her daughter were two text messages and two cards.

After her release from jail, Angela did not tell the department where
she was staying, nor did she reach out to service providers. In February 2025,
she finally met with social workers in Fairfield, revealing that she was living
in a one-bedroom camper in Batavia. The department did not believe that the
camper was an appropriate environment for the children. But by the fall of
2025, Angela was making improvements. She found stable housing and
employment. She started participating in mental-health therapy and family
treatment court. She had an in-person visit with M.M. in December 2025,
and K.B. agreed to a supervised visit with Angela in January 2026.

Meanwhile, the State petitioned for termination of parental rights in
September 2025. The juvenile court held a combined permanency review
and termination hearing in December. The judge started the hearing with an
unsworn conversation with M.M., who attended virtually. M.M. told the
court he was proud of “getting into public school” and “playing basketball.”
He said he looked forward to having visits with his mother and sister.

5
The court also heard from Matthew Royster, a mental-health
counselor who contracted with the QRTP where M.M. lived. He described
M.M. as “a good kid” with “a very big heart.” Royster noted M.M.’s
“tremendous progress” in self-regulation and accountability since entering
the QRTP. But the therapist remained concerned about Angela’s “false
promises” to her son. For instance, Angela assured M.M. that “we’re all
going to get back together,” including J.B. and K.B., when that was not a real
possibility. She also agreed to online therapy sessions with M.M. but failed to
sign onto her computer. M.M. was “extremely loyal to his mom” and
negatively impacted by the inconsistency of her contact with him. Royster
reported that M.M. had stopped wanting to go back home but did want
Angela to move closer to his school.

The evidence showed that K.B. had a different mindset. The
department reported that she appreciated the stability and predictability of
her foster home. She was “very happy” living there with her little brother;
she was doing well in fourth grade and excelled at reading. As the district
court noted, “[K.B] identified this home as a safe space and has fiercely
guarded this placement.” The social worker testified K.B. was “fully
integrated” into her foster home, which was a pre-adoptive placement. She
also testified that K.B. considers her little brother and the foster parents as
her family.

With the court’s approval, Angela filed a written statement after the
hearing. She chronicled her struggle with domestic violence, substance use,
and housing insecurity. She wrote: “I feel like my children were stolen from
me. I am not allowed to know anything about them.” She maintained that she

6
had not received “any support” from the department with transportation,
housing, employment, mental-health, or substance-use issues.7

The juvenile court issued an order terminating Angela’s parental
rights in February 2026. She now appeals.

II. Standard and Scope of Review

We engage in a de novo review of termination proceedings,
“examining both the facts and law and adjudicating anew those issues
properly preserved and presented.” In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 589 n.1 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2019).

Under Iowa Code section 232.116, those issues are generally three-
fold: (1) did the State prove a statutory ground for termination under
section 232.116(1); (2) is termination in the children’s best interests under
the section 232.116(2) framework; and (3) should we apply a permissive
exception under section 232.116(3)? In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 532 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2025) (en banc). We only address the claims raised by a parent on
appeal. Id.

III. Analysis

Although she melds the two issues into one, Angela raises claims
under both subsections (2) and (3) of section 232.116. Id. at 534 (“Conflating
the second and third steps based on a claimed bond with the child is not
uncommon.”). We tease them apart on appeal.

7
The GAL refuted the mother’s allegations and argued that the record
contradicted her “victim stance.”

7
A. Best Interests

In assessing the children’s best interests, we give primary
consideration to their safety, the best placement for furthering their long-
term nurturing and growth, and to their physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs. Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162,
169 (Iowa 2021). As part of that assessment, we weigh the claimed bond
between the mother and children. L.A., 20 N.W.3d at 535. We also consider
K.B.’s integration into her foster home. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b).

As directed by statute, the juvenile court prioritized the children’s
safety and what placement could best support their needs. The court found,
“[t]he children need more than Angela can provide them. It is time for the
children to focus on the permanency they need and deserve.” We concur in
those sentiments. As the juvenile court found, Angela cannot safely care for
these children. The court was blunt: “[M.M.] and [K.B.] are not simply
possessions that can be returned now that Angela has a place for them. They
are young people with identified needs that Angela does not recognize and
has no ability to meet.”

Both M.M. and K.B. have found the support they need in their out-of-
home placements. K.B.’s family identity is with her foster family. See Iowa
Code § 232.116(2)(b). “The child deserves and needs the stability and
permanency they offer.” In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa Ct. App.
2014). As for M.M., he has endured many disappointments from Angela’s
inability to keep unrealistic promises. Suspending his false hope has become
harmful to his well-being. As the GAL noted, M.M. was “not yet placed with
a foster care family as he remains navigating his QRTP program.” But the
GAL offered this reasoned opinion:

8
He had made leaps and bounds in forward progress in his treatment on his
own without the support of his Mother and, in a matter of less than 2 weeks
after an in-person visit from his mother, this progress has completely
unraveled. He deserves the permanency to be awarded with a healthy and
stable forever home after all the hard work he has put in to improve his
behaviors. Sadly, but clearly the contact with his Mother does not serve
[M.M.’s] long-term best interests.

We agree that termination was in the best interests of both children.

B. Parent-Child Bonds

Angela also argues that her legal relationships with M.M. and K.B.
should be preserved under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c). That provision
allows a court to deny termination if “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence
that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the
closeness of the parent-child relationship.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c); In re
A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 300–01 (Iowa 2021). The burden rests with Angela to
prove the exception applies. See L.A., 20 N.W.3d at 535 n.3.

Angela urges that the juvenile court “should have denied the
termination petitions, due to the parent-child bond, particularly the strong
bond between [herself ] and M.M.” As the juvenile court found, “Angela
acknowledges that her bond with [M.M.] was damaged by her past actions
but turns around and blames the department for not fixing and restoring that
bond.” And although M.M. harbors a deep loyalty to his mother, Angela did
not present evidence that terminating her parental rights would be more
detrimental than postponing his permanency. See A.B., 957 N.W.2d at 301.
Angela did not meet her burden of showing termination posed greater harm
to M.M. than subjecting him to continuing uncertainty. The proof is even

9
weaker for K.B., whose relationship with her mother deteriorated because of
the long separation.

We affirm the termination order.

AFFIRMED.

10