Background
The family came to the attention of Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services in December 2023 because of concerns about the mother’s substance use, mental health, and supervision. The children were adjudicated children in need of assistance and initially placed with their biological father.
In October 2024, the children were removed from the father after he tested positive for methamphetamine through a drug patch and failed to complete further testing. The State sought termination in January 2026. At the March 2026 termination hearing, the father acknowledged he was still struggling with drug use and described himself as at a low point. He had maintained digital contact with the children but had not arranged visits through HHS.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f). The first three statutory elements were undisputed, and the father’s ongoing methamphetamine use provided clear and convincing evidence that the children could not safely return to his custody at the time of the hearing.
The court also rejected the father’s reasonable-efforts argument. HHS had offered services, including supervised visitation and drug testing, but the father did not use them or timely object to their adequacy. Termination served the children’s best interests because they were doing well with their foster family, while the father continued to use drugs and had not meaningfully engaged in services. Neither the parent-child bond nor the older child’s objection required a different result.
Key Takeaways
- Continued substance use may establish that children cannot safely be returned to a parent’s custody.
- A parent must timely raise objections to reunification services; failing to do so can waive a reasonable-efforts challenge.
- A guardianship is not preferred over termination when termination serves the children’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Iowa’s three-step termination framework: statutory grounds, best interests, and permissive exceptions. A parent’s love for the children, digital contact, and a child’s expressed objection do not outweigh evidence that the parent cannot safely meet the children’s needs.