In the Interest of K.F., K.F. and. K.F., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1696
Filed January 28, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of K.F., K.F., and K.F., Minor Children,
R.W., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Brent Pattison, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Michael A. Horn of Horn Law Offices, attorney for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Emily Drenkow Carr of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
_______________

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

1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A mother1 appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(f ) (2025) with respect to one child and Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) for her other two children. She challenges the juvenile
court’s determination that (1) the statutory grounds supporting termination
were proven by clear and convincing evidence, (2) termination was in the
children’s best interests, and (3) guardianship in lieu of termination was not
a viable option for these children. Upon our review, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The mother has three children, K.F., K.F., and K.F. The family came
to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) in March 2024 when the youngest child tested positive for cocaine at
birth. HHS implemented a safety plan that allowed a friend of the mother to
provide supervision to the children and mother.

In May 2024, the mother and her friend who was supposed to be
providing supervision both tested positive for cocaine. The State sought
removal of the children, but the children could not be located due the mother
allowing the children to be taken by her brother to avoid removal. The
mother contacted HHS at the end of May and informed them of the
children’s location.

The juvenile court confirmed the removal and deemed the paternal
aunt of the children to be a suitable placement for the children. The State
filed a petition alleging that K.F., K.F., and K.F. were children in need of
assistance (CINA). The petition alleged grounds under Iowa Code

1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated but his appeal was dismissed by
the supreme court for failure to comply with Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.201(1).

2
section 232.96A(3)(b) and (14). The juvenile court adjudicated the children
to be CINA in July.

In August, the mother appeared to be making some progress. She was
employed, seeking treatment for substance use, and participating in Safe
Care services. However, her participation in treatment was inconsistent. By
November, she was not visiting the children or communicating with HHS
consistently. She also did not complete substance-use treatment. The
mother was also refusing drug screens and had an active warrant she needed
to address.

In February 2025, the children’s placement was changed twice, and
the juvenile court found there was little progress towards reunification and
the mother was not participating in drug screens. But she had obtained a
mental-health evaluation and was seeking counseling. In March, the mother
gave birth to another child who was born testing positive for cocaine. That
child was removed and placed with the other children. The youngest child
passed away a month later.

Soon after these events, the State sought placement of the children
with foster care because the youngest child died in the care of the relative all
the children had been placed with. Also, the relative had been allowing the
mother unauthorized visits with the children.

In May, the juvenile court determined the mother had not made
reasonable progress in the year since the children had been removed and
ordered the State to file a petition to terminate parental rights. This came
after the mother was diagnosed with severe cocaine and alcohol disorders.
She was refusing drug tests when requested by HHS. In at least one instance,
she came intoxicated to a visit with the children. Additionally, there was a

3
reported instance of domestic violence with the father where the mother
called 911 but refused to cooperate with responding officers.

The State filed a petition to terminate parental rights alleging the
mother’s parental rights should be terminated as to the oldest child under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f ), and under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)
with respect to the two younger children. In October, the juvenile court
granted the petition. The mother now appeals.

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).

STATUTORY GROUNDS
The mother challenges the statutory grounds for the termination of
her parental rights as to each child. To support termination of her parental

4
rights as to the oldest child the State had to prove the child (1) is at least four
years old, (2) has been adjudicated a CINA, (3) “has been removed from the
physical custody of the child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen
months,” and (4) there is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot
be returned to the custody of the parent under section 232.102 at the present
time. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f ). And to support termination with respect
to the two younger children, the State had to prove the children (1) are three
years old or younger, (2) have been adjudicated CINA, (3) have “been
removed from the physical custody of the child[ren]’s parents for at least six
months of the last twelve months,” and (4) there is clear and convincing
evidence that the children cannot be returned to the custody of the parent
under section 232.102 at the present time. Id. § 232.116(1)(h).

The oldest child was born in 2018, and the two younger children were
born in 2022 and 2024, respectively. So, each child meets the age required
by statute. They were all adjudicated as CINA under Iowa Code
section 232.96A(3)(b) and (14) in June 2024. Additionally, each child had
been removed for more than twelve months—from May 2024 through
termination in October 2025. Therefore, we find each of the first three
elements were proven by clear and convincing evidence with respect to each
child.

Further, we find there is clear and convincing evidence in this record
that the children could not be returned to the custody of the parent. Children
cannot be returned to the parents as provided in section 232.102 if the
children cannot be protected from harm that would justify a CINA
adjudication. Id. § 232.102(4). And “at the present time” means at the time
of the termination hearing. See In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 168 (Iowa 2021).
During the course of this case, the mother has had unresolved substance-use

5
and mental-health concerns. Among the concerns are several positive drug
screens for cocaine. The mother also refused to test when HHS requested
her to, and we presume those refused tests were positive. See, e.g., In re A.T.,
No. 25-0119, 2025 WL 1085210, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2025)
(presuming all missed tests would be positive for illegal substances when the
parent had “no persuasive excuse” for the missed tests). These unresolved
substance use concerns are a barrier to the safe return of the children. See
W.M., 957 N.W.2d at 313 (“A long history of substance abuse, repeated
relapses, and demonstrated inability to maintain sobriety outside a
supervised setting demonstrates the children could not have been returned
to her care at the time of the termination hearing.”). Because there remains
a dangerous environment stemming from the potential of exposure to
controlled substances, we find the children cannot be safely returned to the
mother. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f )(4), (1)(h)(4).

BEST INTERESTS
Next, the mother argues termination was not in the children’s best
interests. In considering that question, 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). Our review of
the record leads us to the conclusion that termination is in the children’s best
interests.

Here we have already identified that these children have been exposed
to cocaine which creates a dangerous environment for them, which supports
our conclusion that termination is in their best interests. See J.P., 2020
WL 110425, at *2. Additionally, the record demonstrates these children have
been exposed to domestic violence in the home. See In re J.D., No. 21-0391,

6
2021 WL 3379037, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2021) (recognizing exposure
to domestic violence is harmful to children). Because of these unresolved
safety concerns for the children, we find termination is in their best interests.

Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s
parental rights as to all three children.

GUARDIANSHIP
The mother argues in her petition that establishment of a guardianship
was preferred in lieu of termination. At the outset, we find error is not
preserved on this argument. The only reference to a guardianship in the
record is a reference in the mother’s testimony. Beyond that, the mother’s
attorney never requested a guardianship, so juvenile court was unable to rule
on the request. See In re M.H., 12 N.W.3d 159, 162–63 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024).

Even if error had been preserved, we would find a guardianship is not
appropriate in this case. Generally, “a guardianship is not a legally preferable
alternative to termination.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2018)
(quoting In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017)). Guardianships
often provide less stability for children because they can be changed or
terminated. In re A.M., No. 20-1008, 2020 WL 7021576, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App.
Nov. 30, 2020). These children are very young and in need of permanency.
So, we find a guardianship is not appropriate in this case.

AFFIRMED.

7