In the Interest of S.L. and D.L., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 26-0227
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of S.L. and D.L., Minor Children,
S.L., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,
The Honorable Scott Strait, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Katie E. Johnson of Katie Johnson Law, Council Bluffs, attorney for
appellant mother.

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

Sara E. Benson of Meldrum & Benson Law, Council Bluffs, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
_______________

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

1
TABOR, Chief Judge.

Ten-year-old S.L. and eleven-year-old D.L. compared their lives to
being on a roller coaster—“they go back with mom and/or dad, get removed,
get visits, then [their parents] go to jail and then they don’t get visits. Then
they start doing visits again. They go back home and get removed again.”
Indeed, in the past decade, the sisters were removed from their mother’s
custody five times, largely because of her addiction to methamphetamine.

After the fifth removal and with little progress from the mother in
addressing her substance use, the juvenile court terminated her parental
rights.1 The mother challenges termination, arguing that the State did not
prove a statutory basis. She also contends that the court should have applied
exceptions to preserve her rights. Finding clear and convincing evidence that
termination was proper under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(l) (2025) and
that no exception applied, we affirm.2

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

This family has a chaotic history. The girls were first removed from
their parents’ custody when they were toddlers. The juvenile court
adjudicated them as children in need of assistance (CINA) because the
parents were using methamphetamine. That CINA case was open from May
2016 through September 2017. Another removal occurred in December 2018
when the parents again used methamphetamine and exposed the children to

1
The court also terminated the father’s rights, but he does not appeal.
2
We review these proceedings de novo. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa
2022). Under this standard of review, “we examine the whole record, find our own facts,
and adjudicate rights anew on issues properly before us.” In re M.H., 12 N.W.3d 159, 160
(Iowa Ct. App. 2024) (citation omitted). We also give deference to the juvenile court’s
factual findings, especially on credibility issues. Id.

2
domestic violence. That second CINA case closed in February 2020. But a
third removal followed in March 2021, again based on the mother’s use of
methamphetamine while caring for her daughters. That CINA case closed in
February 2022. The girls were removed for the fourth time just one month
later when the mother relapsed on methamphetamine and engaged in self-
harm. That fourth case closed in July 2023.

The pattern continued. Just over a year later, the Iowa Department of
Health and Human Services intervened again when the father assaulted the
mother in the presence of the children. Although the department’s
September 2024 investigation resulted in a finding of child abuse against the
father, S.L. and D.L. stayed in the home without a new CINA adjudication.
But not for long. In January 2025, the department learned the parents were
again using methamphetamine. That same month, the police took the
children into protective custody when they were left in the care of a registered
sex offender. In March 2025, the juvenile court adjudicated the girls as CINA
for the fifth time.

At first, D.L. and S.L. lived with their adult sister and her boyfriend,
who according to the girls’ guardian ad litem (GAL), “had their hearts in the
right place.” But that placement did not work out because “there were too
many concerns with the girls missing therapy and medical appointments
despite constant reminders.” In August 2025, the girls went to live with their
aunt, who provided a stable and secure environment.3

The girls’ visits with their mother went well “for the most part.”
Service providers reported that she came prepared and made positive strides

3
By the time of the termination hearing in January 2026, the aunt was exploring
the possibility of adoption.

3
in her parenting. Yet both girls continued to experience symptoms related to
their past traumas. And S.L. “expressed increased sadness and anxiety” after
seeing her mother. The record also shows visitation had to be cancelled when
the mother was twice arrested and spent time in jail. According to the GAL,
S.L. and D.L. “both crave stability.”

Key to this appeal, the mother counted little progress in addressing her
addiction. She had a substance-use evaluation in October 2024. She received
a diagnosis of severe amphetamine-type substance-use disorder. In
September 2025, she completed inpatient treatment but relapsed. From
March through December 2025, she tested positive for methamphetamine
twice and missed more than a dozen random drug screens. She did have two
negative tests in July and two more in November and December.

In November 2025, the State petitioned for termination of the
mother’s parental rights, citing Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (e),
(f ), (i), and (l). After a hearing in January 2026, the juvenile court issued its
order—finding the State did not prove the grounds alleged in paragraphs (f )
and (i) but terminating the mother’s rights under paragraphs (e) and (l). The
mother appeals.

II. Analysis

Termination of parental rights is a three-fold process. In re A.B., 957
N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021). First, the State must prove a statutory ground
for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1). Id. Second, the State
must show termination is in the child’s best interests under
section 232.116(2). Id. Third, parents may rely on exceptions to termination
under section 232.116(3). Id. We address only the issues that a parent
disputes. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

4
The mother challenges both grounds for termination under section
232.116(1) and briefly touches on two exceptions under section 232.116(3).
We start with the statutory grounds. We may affirm on any ground supported
by the record. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). Here, we focus
on paragraph (l), which authorizes termination when
[t]he court finds that all of the following have occurred:

(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96 and custody has been transferred from the
child’s parents for placement pursuant to section 232.102.

(2) The parent has a severe substance use disorder as described by
either of the following:

(a) The severe substance use disorder meets the definition for that
term as defined in the most current edition of the diagnostic and statistical
manual prepared by the American psychiatric association, and the parent
presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts.

(b) The disorder is evidenced by continued and repeated use
through the case, the parent’s refusal to obtain a substance use disorder
evaluation or treatment after given the opportunity to do so, and the parent
presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts.

(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s
prognosis indicates that the child will not be able to be returned to the
custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time considering the
child’s age and need for a permanent home.

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(l).

The mother contests the State’s proof that she has a severe substance-
use disorder that “poses a danger to herself or to her children.” She
acknowledges evidence showing she used methamphetamine during this
CINA case. But she pivots to the “periods of time where she was negative for
all substances on drug screening tests” and claims that her admission to
having an addiction shows a willingness to get help.

5
As the juvenile court noted, the mother “has demonstrated no ability
to maintain prolonged sobriety.” And the court was not persuaded by her
testimony that she was committed to making the necessary changes. We
defer to that credibility finding.

We find that the mother has a severe substance use disorder as defined
by the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-5) prepared by the American
Psychiatric Association. Beyond that diagnosis, the mother presents a danger
to herself and her daughters if they are returned to her custody, as revealed
by her past relapses. We often say that evidence of a parent’s past
performance is “indicative of the quality of the future care that parent is
capable of providing.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000) (citation
omitted). And as the juvenile court observed, “This case is, unfortunately, a
glaring example of that axiom.”

Because the evidence exposed a dim view of the mother’s prospects
for long-term sobriety, and considering the toll that the family’s turmoil has
taken on her daughters’ mental health, we find clear and convincing evidence
that S.L. and D.L. cannot be returned to her custody within a reasonable
time. These children need stability. Or in the apt words of the juvenile court,
“the ‘roller coaster’ needs to stop.”

Finally, the mother cites section 232.116(3) and argues that
“termination should not have occurred due to the closeness of the parent-
child relationship, their strong bond, and due to the children being placed
with a relative.” Assuming without deciding that her barebones argument is
enough to present those issues, we find no permissive exception applies. The
mother does not carry her burden to show that termination would be harmful
to either girl because of the closeness of the parent-child relationship. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c); In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475–76 (Iowa 2018).

6
And the mother does not show that the children were in the “legal custody”
of their aunt. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a); In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 170
(Iowa 2021) (distinguishing relative placement from “legal custody”).

AFFIRMED.

7