In re the Guardianship of E.W.-W., a Minor

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1035
Filed May 13, 2026
_______________

In re the Guardianship of E.W.-W., a Minor,
M.W.,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County,
The Honorable Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Joseph Schiller of Iowa Legal Aid, Mason City, attorney for appellant.

Cameron M. Sprecher of Sprecher Law Office, Mason City,
attorney for appellee guardian.
_______________

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

1
SANDY, Judge.

E.W.-W. is approximately eleven years old. In those almost eleven
years, she has endured her mother’s addictions, survived sexual abuse at the
hands of a trusted relative, lost her grandmother and prior caretaker to
cancer, and navigated an absent father. But despite those setbacks and
hardships, she has finally found in her aunt’s home something previously rare
and unheard-of: a bedtime, consistent meals, and adults who actively care for
her. Her mother—now sober for over four years, employed, and settled in a
home with a room set aside for her daughter—wants her back. The question
before us is not whether the mother loves her daughter, or whether she has
turned her life around. She does and she has. The question is whether,
against the backdrop of this child’s particular history, the record supports
continuing the guardianship over her mother’s objection. We conclude it
does, and in so doing, affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
E.W.-W. is the mother and father’s eleven-year-old daughter. From her
birth until approximately 2018 or 2019, E.W.-W. resided with her parents on
a shared custody basis. Around that time, the mother developed a
dependency on opiates and methamphetamine, which ultimately resulted in
criminal charges for theft and unauthorized use of a credit card, a brief period
of incarceration, and her inability to care for E.W.-W. As a result, E.W.-W.
went to live with her paternal grandparents. While residing there, E.W.-W.
was repeatedly sexually abused by her paternal grandfather, a fact unknown
to others at the time. He was later found responsible for child abuse by the
Iowa Department of Health and Human Services and entered a guilty plea to
a felony charge of lascivious acts with a child. A no-contact order was

2
subsequently entered prohibiting the paternal grandfather from having any
contact with E.W.-W.

Following the death of E.W.-W.’s paternal grandmother from cancer
around 2021, E.W.-W. went to live with her father in Minnesota. The father
worked as an over-the-road truck driver, had a history of substance abuse and
domestic violence, and was frequently absent from the home. E.W.-W. was
often cared for by the father’s significant other. M.F., who is E.W.-W.’s
paternal aunt, agreed to assist in caring for E.W.-W. and her half-sibling. The
father subsequently relocated to Riceville, Iowa, to facilitate that
arrangement.

During this same period, the mother had not maintained contact with
E.W.-W. Her opiate dependency had transitioned to methamphetamine
abuse. She entered inpatient treatment approximately four years ago. M.F.
spoke with both parents about establishing a guardianship. Both consented,
and in August of 2022, M.F. was appointed as E.W.-W.’s legal guardian
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232D.203 (2022). At the time of her consent,
the mother was sober, employed, and in a relationship with her now-spouse.
She was, however, residing in a one-bedroom apartment without a designated
space for E.W.-W., and E.W.-W. had expressed a preference to remain with
M.F.

Following establishment of the guardianship, contact between the
mother and E.W.-W. was limited and inconsistent. Visits were infrequent and
often requested with minimal advance notice—conflicting with E.W.-W.’s
scheduled activities. Eventually the mother purchased a home in Fort Dodge
with a designated bedroom for E.W.-W., obtained a degree, and maintained
her sobriety and employment.

3
In August 2024, the mother filed a petition to terminate guardianship.
The juvenile court initially declined to schedule a hearing on the petition,
noting that the mother did not have physical care or unsupervised visitation
with E.W.-W. and directed the mother to notify the court once the custody
order with the father was modified. The mother subsequently obtained a
modification of the custody order between herself and the father, granting
her physical care of E.W.-W., with the father receiving visitation as agreed
between the parties (defaulting to every other weekend if the parties could
not agree). The mother then moved to reinstate the petition to terminate
guardianship in December 2024, and a hearing was scheduled for May 2025.

Following the withdrawal of a previously appointed court visitor, the
juvenile court appointed a new court visitor who conducted interviews with
E.W.-W., the mother, and M.F., reviewed financial records, and inspected
both homes. The court visitor’s report found that the mother’s home was
adequately maintained and appropriate, that the mother had been gainfully
employed with the same employer for approximately four years, that the
mother had maintained sobriety for more than four years, and that the
mother was meeting E.W.-W.’s physical, psychological, and emotional needs.
The court visitor recommended termination of the guardianship and that
custody be returned to the mother, while also recommending that E.W.-W. be
permitted to maintain contact with M.F. and the guardian’s family.

At the contested hearing, the court received testimony from the
mother, E.W.-W.’s maternal grandmother, and the guardian. Exhibits were
admitted into evidence. The father did not appear. E.W.-W. was present at
the outset of the hearing and was thereafter excused to return to school. The
same day the contested evidentiary hearing occurred—May 22, 2025—the
juvenile court entered its order denying the mother’s motion for termination

4
of guardianship. The court found that a basis for the guardianship continued
to exist, that termination of the guardianship would be harmful to E.W.-W.,
and that E.W.-W.’s best interests were in the continuation of the
guardianship, which outweighed the mother’s interests in termination of the
same. The mother appeals, arguing that the juvenile court erred when it
denied her request to terminate the guardianship.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
An action for termination of guardianship is a proceeding in equity. In
re Guardianship of L.Y., 968 N.W.2d 882, 892 (Iowa 2022). Accordingly,
review of an order declining to terminate a guardianship is de novo. Id. In
equity cases, we give deference to the lower court’s factual findings, but we
are not bound by those determinations. Id.

DISCUSSION
When a court finds the basis for a guardianship established under Iowa
Code section 232D.203 “is not currently satisfied,” the court “shall
terminate” the guardianship unless the party seeking continuation proves by
clear and convincing evidence both that termination would be harmful to the
minor and that the minor’s interest in continuation outweighs the parent’s
interest in termination. Iowa Code § 232D.503(2) (2025); L.Y., 968 N.W.2d
at 900. To meet the clear and convincing standard under the Iowa Minor
Guardianship Proceedings Act in a guardianship-termination proceeding, it
is insufficient for the guardians to show that they would provide superior care
to the child. L.Y., 968 N.W.2d at 900.

To start, the mother has made commendable and genuine progress.
She has maintained sobriety for over four years, obtained stable employment
as a substance-use counselor, purchased a home with a designated room for

5
E.W.-W., and has worked to rebuild their relationship. The court visitor, after
reviewing the mother’s home and finances and interviewing the parties,
recommended termination and found the mother capable of meeting
E.W.-W.’s needs. We do not minimize these achievements. But we must also
be cognizant that the mother has not fulfilled the role of a parent to E.W.-W.
for over seven years—which is likely all of E.W.-W.’s life that she can
remember. Such an absence has consequences we cannot overlook. The
record—as a whole—supports the juvenile court’s conclusions.

E.W.-W. carries diagnoses of PTSD, reactive attachment disorder, and
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stemming from a childhood marked
by serial neglect, parental abandonment, and repeated sexual abuse by a
paternal relative. Her recovery depends fundamentally on stability,
predictability, and appropriate boundaries. The juvenile court, in part, had
this to say about the mother’s ability to provide stability, predictability, and
appropriate boundaries:
Further, there have been many issues with visits. [The mother] and
[the mother’s spouse] arrive late and drop off late. They also seem to
always pick up and drop off [E.W.-W.] as a “team.” Certainly, couples
generally like to do things together, but [the guardian] had to go pick up
[E.W.-W.] from spring break because [the mother] was sick ([the mother’s
spouse] was not, according to [E.W.-W.]), and some of the inconvenience
of working around [E.W.-W.’s] activity schedule could be relieved if one of
them could do the transport. Also, when one of their pets needed to go to
the vet in the middle of the night, instead of one of them staying with
[E.W.-W.] so she could sleep, they woke her up and drug her to Ames, too.
[E.W.-W.] reports occasions when she is not eating at regular times or
having access to food. She doesn’t have a bedtime or any schedule on visits.
Even when a child doesn’t have school the next day, they need to go to bed
at a reasonable hour, and it should be consistent with the usual time and
routine so that their sleep is better. There also seems to be a lot of adult
napping, including “special naps” (whatever that means). At least once
[E.W.-W.] didn’t have lunch because [the mother] and [the mother’s

6
spouse] took a nap at 1:00 without having fed her and then picked up lunch
at 3:30 on the way back to Riceville. This is not healthy for a child. [E.W.-
W.] should not be hungry. She should not be left in the dark about when
she is going to eat again. Her needs should not be ignored so that both
adults in the house can take a nap at the same time, in the middle of the
day.

It is also concerning that [the mother] cannot seem to figure out a
manageable way to do visits. While certainly it is inconvenient to pick
[E.W.-W.] up Friday night, take her to Fort Dodge, bring her back for
volleyball on Saturday, take her back to Fort Dodge and bring her back on
Sunday, there are other ways to solve this problem. Perhaps not pick her
up until Saturday after her game and then spend the night at maternal
grandmother’s home in Mason City. This would be far less driving and
allow [E.W.-W.] to spend time with [her brother] and her grandmother.
Instead, [the mother] seems to complain that [E.W.-W.] shouldn’t be in
volleyball and that visits should not have to work around [E.W.-W.’s]
schedule. The visits are supposed to be for [E.W.-W.’s] benefit, so they
naturally should work around her needs and her schedule. One of the main
features of parenting is that it [is] very inconvenient. Kids need things and
parents need to provide them. That often requires accommodating the
schedules that organizations set—not limit the child’s opportunities nor
complain about the time associated with it.

Also, parents have rights, but they also have obligations to their
child. [The mother] has not provided financial assistance for seven years
(other than being asked once for something related to dance). She has not
spoken with [E.W.-W.’s] teachers, therapist, coaches, 4H leader, doctors or
dentist. While she complains that [the guardian] has not discussed any of
these appointments or activities with her in advance, as the guardian, [the
guardian] is not required to do that. It would be nice if she would, but there
is no evidence that anything major has happened (other than the sexual
abuse) that would warrant some sort of consultation. Even in complaining
that she was not consulted about [E.W.-W.] being baptized, it seems that
there have been at least two discussions about it, including [the mother’s]
statement that she was leaving the decision up to [E.W.-W.]. [E.W.-W.]
made her decision, she talked with [the mother] about it, and it occurred.
[The mother] and [the mother’s spouse] did not attend, and if religion isn’t
their thing, that is understandable. But like the complaint that she hasn’t
been consulted, it seems more of an irritation that she wasn’t asked

7
permission than an actual concern that [E.W.-W.] is not receiving proper
care or attention. Particularly since [the mother] could have actually found
out all of this directly from [E.W.-W.’s] providers, teachers, coaches, etc.—
as well as from [E.W.-W.] or even asking [the guardian]—this does not
seem like genuine concern about [E.W.-W.’s] condition but rather
lamenting a lack of control over [E.W.-W.’s] life. This fits into the overall
feeling that [the mother] wants [E.W.-W.] to be with her because she wants
her, not because she believes it will benefit [E.W.-W.] in some way, and
without any regard for how difficult yet another move will be for [E.W.-W.].
For example, when asked about what she would like to see for a transition
for her home, she had no plan—just a statement that she would like to have
her with her as soon as possible. [E.W.-W.] is a person, not a possession,
and she is going to have a lot of really big emotions about another move.
She doesn’t realize that because she is a child, but losing everything that
she has built for the last four years will take an emotional toll on her. Losing
the people she has grown to trust and been able to rely on is a significant
loss that she will grieve—just like the many caretakers she has already lost
during her lifetime. A transition such as that has to be thoughtfully
discussed with her therapist, [the guardian] and with [E.W.-W.], and
carried out in a way that doesn’t harm [E.W.-W.]. Having failed to consider
that demonstrates a lack of empathy and concern for [E.W.-W.]. There also
does not seem to be any idea about a disciplinary approach with [E.W.-W.],
other than talking to her or taking away electronics. Especially since [E.W.-
W.] has seen a therapist for several years, it would be important for [the
mother] to consult with the therapist for suggestions for discipline and
transition, but even though she herself is a substance abuse counselor, this
does not seem to have occurred to her. (She has made appointments for
medical, dental and therapy with new providers, but has ignored the
opportunity to speak with the people meeting those needs for [E.W.-W.]
now who would have valuable input.)

The juvenile court found that the mother’s conduct during
visitations—including failing to provide consistent meals and routines—
reflected a pattern that, given E.W.-W.’s specific vulnerabilities, presents
more than ordinary parenting imperfections. We defer to those credibility-
laden findings. The mother’s assurances that she would correct these

8
practices if given full-time custody were weighed by the juvenile court and
found insufficient, and we find no basis to disturb that determination.

The record also supports the juvenile court’s concern regarding the
custody arrangement the mother entered into with Father. That stipulation
affords the father default unsupervised visitation with E.W.-W., a child he has
not seen in at least four years. This is despite his unresolved history of
substance use, domestic violence, and his ties to the individual who sexually
abused E.W.-W. The mother’s agreement to this arrangement, without
apparent appreciation of the risk it poses, bears directly on the consequences
that would flow from termination of the guardianship and was a legitimate
consideration for the court.

We are not unmindful of E.W.-W.’s expressed preference to live with
her mother, nor of the close and loving relationship they share. True, a child’s
wishes are a relevant consideration, but they are not determinative. See In re
Marriage of Ellerbroek, 377 N.W.2d 257, 258–59 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985). The
juvenile court appropriately observed that E.W.-W.’s perspective, shaped by
a nascent and still-developing relationship, does not override the weight of
the record.

The mother argues the court improperly relied on her failure to
exercise parental responsibilities during the guardianship, financial
disparities between the households, transition stress, and her prior
substance-use history. We agree these factors, standing alone, may be
insufficient to rebut the parental presumption. But our affirmance does not
rest on those grounds in isolation. It rests instead on the totality of the record,
which reflects that the specific and documented risks to E.W.-W.’s safety and
therapeutic recovery—considered in light of her particular history and

9
diagnoses—satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard required to
continue the guardianship.

AFFIRMED.

10