In the Interest of Z.C., Minor Child

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 26-1120
Filed October 21, 2026
_______________
In the Interest of Z.C., Minor Child,
J.R., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,
The Honorable Charles D. Fagan, Judge.
_______________
AFFIRMED
_______________
Norman L. Springer Jr. of McGinn & McCann, P.L.C., Council Bluffs,
attorney for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.
Sara E. Benson of Meldrum & Benson Law, P.C., Council Bluffs, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________
Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Greer, P.J.

2
GREER, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to Z.C., born
in early 2023, under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), and (l) (2026).1
On appeal, the mother challenges each of the statutory grounds, asserting the
juvenile court erred in holding that the State proved the grounds by clear and
convincing evidence. On our review, we find that the State established
grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights and that the child’s
best interests are served through that action.2 We affirm the termination of
the mother’s parental rights.
In February 2025, the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) was alerted to concerns about the parents’
methamphetamine use while caring for Z.C., along with an additional
concern about ongoing domestic violence in the home. To start, we consider
whether the State has proved statutory grounds for termination. A.B., 957
N.W.2d at 294. We can affirm on any ground supported by clear and
convincing evidence, In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010), and here,
we choose to consider paragraph (h). The court may terminate parental
rights under section 232.116(1)(h) when:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant
to section 232.96.
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated, and he does not appeal.
2 “We review termination of parental rights de novo.” In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280,
293 (Iowa 2021).

3
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s
parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six
consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty
days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be
returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in
section 232.102 at the present time.
In applying this statutory ground, we take “at the present time” to mean “at
the time of the termination hearing.” D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.
Contesting the State’s evidence on this ground, the mother asserts that
the child was not removed for the last six consecutive months, and so the
State failed in its proof. The mother points to an order modifying the support
obligation from the child support services unit of HHS that referenced the
mother as the “caretaker” of the child in December 2025. But, in the
juvenile court proceedings, which contain the orders related to removal, we
find that the child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance on
July 31, 2025, and on that date, the juvenile court ordered that the care,
custody, and control of the child be placed in HHS for relative care as the
child had been staying with her paternal grandmother. As the juvenile court
noted in its July order, “[r]emoval from the family home is the result of a
determination that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of
the child and reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the
need for removal of the child from the child’s home.” Since that time, the
child has been in the care of her paternal grandmother and is “thriving.” As
the termination hearing was held on June 1 and June 3, 2026, contrary to the
mother’s claim that six-months had not transpired since removal, there was
clear and convincing evidence that all the elements of section 232.116(1)(h)
were met.

4
Additionally, the State proved that the child could not be returned to
the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. See id. Because
the concerns, including substance use, domestic violence, and mental-health
issues, that brought the case to the attention of HHS remained at the time of
the termination hearing, the safety of the child required that reunification was
not an option. The mother did not complete the recommended substance-
use treatment, was a no-show for drug testing throughout the case, would not
consistently work with HHS or the other professionals, and thus could not
demonstrate stability or sobriety. Nor did the mother complete the domestic-
violence-prevention program that was ordered. At one point, the mother had
moved out of the area and cut off communication with the HHS social work
case manager, such that visits with the child could not occur. Given these
facts, we find the State met its burden to show grounds for termination and
that termination of the mother’s parental rights was appropriate.
Having found that the elements of section 232.116(1)(h) were proven
by clear and convincing evidence, we still must determine whether
terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child.
Under Iowa Code section 232.116(2), we are to “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” when determining whether to terminate
the rights of a parent. As the guardian ad litem (GAL) confirmed in several
reports to the court, the mother has not sustained any progress with her
“sobriety, consistent service engagement, or consistent visitation
attendance.” The GAL also noted that the child had been in and out of the
grandmother’s care since the child’s birth and that the child is “comfortable
and secure” in the grandmother’s care. We find it is in the best interests of
Z.C. to terminate the mother’s parental rights to allow the grandmother to

5
adopt. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring
specially) (“A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are now the
primary concerns when determining a child’s best interests.”).
Based on the reasoning above, we affirm the termination of the
mother’s parental rights to Z.C.
AFFIRMED.