Background
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services first became involved with the family in April 2024 when the mother’s older child required removal due to the mother’s mental health crisis (auditory hallucinations requiring inpatient treatment). The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the older sibling. When D.L. was born, the mother initially retained custody, but in May 2025, after testing positive for THC, methamphetamine, and cocaine, the child was removed and placed in foster care. A child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petition was filed and adjudicated in July 2025.
Throughout the proceedings, the mother exhibited concerning behaviors: overfed the child during supervised visits, engaged in repeated messaging with former foster parents, filed false police reports and an ombudsman complaint claiming the children were being trafficked, and sent a local news station photos of the children claiming they were missing. Her communications were often “nonsensical and incoherent.” In December 2025, she tested positive for methamphetamine again, yet denied substance use and offered no explanation for the positive result.
The mother did increase her therapy attendance to eight sessions per month by November 2025 and was placed in a foster home with her older sibling. However, the HHS social worker and guardian ad litem both testified that prior to November, the mother had not adequately addressed her mental health concerns. The mother herself admitted in November that she was not addressing her trauma in therapy. In December, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights, with a hearing held in January 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g) and (h). The mother’s argument that she and the child had a “strong bond” was not preserved for appeal because she failed to raise the parent-child bond exception at the trial court level. While the appellate court generously reviewed her best-interests argument despite inadequate briefing, it found termination proper.
The court identified three persistent, unaddressed safety concerns: (1) the mother’s inadequate response to her mental health issues despite some recent improvements; (2) her pattern of engaging in unsafe relationships while failing to recognize them as unsafe, creating a future risk to the child; and (3) her recent positive drug test for methamphetamine coupled with a complete lack of accountability for her substance use. The court applied Iowa’s standard that “past performance” indicates the quality of care a parent is capable of providing in the future, and emphasized that courts cannot “deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for termination by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent.”
The decision stressed that in evaluating best interests, courts must give primary consideration to the child’s safety, best placement for long-term nurturing and growth, and the child’s physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs. The court commended the mother’s progress in therapy but found it insufficient to overcome the constellation of unresolved safety issues.
Key Takeaways
- Termination of parental rights is affirmed where a parent fails to adequately address identified safety concerns—including mental health treatment, substance abuse accountability, and capacity for safe relationships—even when the parent makes some progress.
- Parents must raise exceptions to termination (such as the parent-child bond exception) at trial court proceedings or waive the right to appeal them; conclusory arguments on appeal are insufficient and may be waived.
- Recent positive drug tests combined with denial of substance use and lack of accountability constitute a primary safety concern supporting termination.
- De novo appellate review of termination cases prioritizes the child’s best interests, and past parental performance is the key predictor of future care capacity.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Iowa courts will terminate parental rights when parents fail to resolve core safety issues, regardless of isolated improvements or emotional bonds. The mother’s case illustrates that increasing therapy attendance alone cannot overcome continued substance abuse, mental health instability, and unsafe relationship patterns. Courts will not postpone permanency for a child by hoping a parent will eventually become capable—the focus is on demonstrated, sustained change addressing actual safety threats.
The opinion also carries procedural significance for family law practitioners. The emphasis on proper preservation of exceptions at trial and the warnings about inadequate briefing on appeal signal that appellate courts will not undertake advocacy work for parents. Attorneys representing parents in termination cases must explicitly raise all applicable exceptions under Iowa Code § 232.116(3) at the trial court level and provide fact-specific legal arguments on appeal, or risk waiver of important claims.