In re E.M. and A.M. — Iowa appeals court upholds termination of father’s parental rights

Case
In the Interest of E.M. and A.M., Minor Children
Court
Iowa Court of Appeals
Judge
Ahlers, P.J.; Chicchelly, J.; Langholz, J.
Date Decided
September 23, 2026
Docket No.
26-0877
Topics
Parental rights; Child welfare; Domestic violence; Substance use
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

After E.M. was born in November 2022 with marijuana compounds in her umbilical cord, Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services became involved with the family. The father committed two acts of domestic violence against the mother while E.M. was present, and law enforcement found illegal substances in the home. The juvenile court adjudicated E.M. a child in need of assistance and removed her from the father’s custody.

The father initially made progress through therapy and substance-use treatment, but later violated a protective order, secretly resumed living with the mother, relapsed into substance use, and concealed the relationship from the court and HHS. When A.M. was born in June 2025, she too was removed because of the father’s unresolved mental-health and substance-use issues. Both children were placed with grandparents. The State sought termination only of the father’s rights.

The Court’s Holding

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order. The juvenile court had terminated the father’s rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(a), based on parental consent, and section 232.116(1)(h), concerning children age three or younger who cannot be returned to the parent’s custody.

On appeal, the father challenged only the consent ground. Because he made no argument against termination under section 232.116(1)(h), he waived any challenge to that independent statutory ground, and the appellate court affirmed on that basis.

The court also held that termination served the children’s best interests. The father had relapsed, continued to struggle with anger, mental health, and domestic violence, exposed the children to illegal substances, and repeatedly deceived authorities to evade safety restrictions. The children were doing well with their grandparents.

Key Takeaways

  • A parent who does not challenge every independent termination ground waives review of the unchallenged ground.
  • An appellate court may affirm a termination order on an unchallenged statutory ground without addressing a challenged alternative ground.
  • Relapse, unresolved domestic violence, mental-health concerns, and deception can support a best-interests finding even where a parent previously made meaningful progress.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores the importance of briefing every statutory basis supporting a termination order. Challenging only one alternative ground leaves the unchallenged ground sufficient to sustain the judgment.

It also reflects Iowa’s focus on a child’s present need for safety and permanence where a parent’s improvements have not resolved the conditions that prevent safe reunification.

✉️ 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