In the Interest of A.T., R.E., R.E., and Z.T. — Iowa Court of Appeals affirms termination of mother’s parental rights

Case
In the Interest of A.T., R.E., R.E., and Z.T., Minor Children, C.A., Mother, Appellant
Court
Iowa Court of Appeals
Judge
Tabor, C.J. (Chet Culver, 2010); Schumacher, J. (Kim Reynolds, 2019); Buller, J. (Kim Reynolds, 2022)
Date Decided
September 23, 2026
Docket No.
26-1040
Topics
Parental rights; Child welfare; Relative custody; Methamphetamine
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services became involved with the family in June 2024 after concerns that C.A. was using methamphetamine. Although she denied use, she tested positive. The four children expressed fear and concerns about living in her home and were removed from parental custody. They were placed with their respective fathers, who are relatives under Iowa’s termination statute.

The children adjusted well in their fathers’ care, while the mother struggled to comply with her case plan. She missed or canceled supervised visits, tested positive for methamphetamine in 2025, relapsed on methamphetamine and marijuana before the November 2025 termination hearing, and left inpatient treatment after one week. After the record reopened, the court received evidence of her December 2025 arrest on drug-related charges, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.

The Court’s Holding

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f). The mother challenged only the district court’s refusal to apply the permissive exception in section 232.116(3)(a), which allows a court to forgo termination when a relative has legal custody of the child.

The court held that the mother did not carry her burden to establish that exception. Her argument that the children might someday be left without a parent if their fathers became unable to care for them was speculative. Given her continuing substance use, failure to benefit from services, and disruption to the children, the court exercised its discretion not to preserve the parent-child relationships merely because the children were in relative custody.

Key Takeaways

  • A parent seeking a section 232.116(3) exception bears the burden of establishing it.
  • Relative custody is a permissive, not mandatory, reason to decline termination.
  • The children’s best interests remained controlling despite their placement with their fathers.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that placement with a relative does not itself prevent termination of parental rights. Courts retain discretion to terminate when the parent cannot safely resume care and termination serves the children’s best interests.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top