In the Interest of H.H., Minor Child
CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
Date FiledSeptember 2, 2026
Docket26-0841
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 26-0841
Filed September 2, 2026
_______________
In the Interest of H.H., Minor Child,
C.B., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County,
The Honorable Elizabeth Batey, Judge.
_______________
AFFIRMED
_______________
Matthew B. De Jong, Rochester, Minnesota, attorney for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.
Danielle M. Ellingson of Noah, Smith, Sloter & Ellingson PLC, Charles
City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________
Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Buller, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.
1
BULLER, Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child
born in March 2022, asserting termination was not in the child’s best
interests. The father’s rights were also terminated but are not at issue in this
appeal. We affirm; the record establishes—at the very least—that the mother
stood idly by while the child was beat nearly to death by another adult.
In February 2025, the mother was feeding the then-two-year-old child
Cheerios in the kitchen. The scene included what most would describe as
normal toddler behavior: the child spit out some cereal at the mother’s
roommate and threw some on the floor. The roommate’s reaction was
anything but normal—she force-fed the child and violently assaulted her for
more than an hour until the child was near death. In her version of events,
the mother stood nearby and did not say or do anything to stop the assault,
despite the child looking to her for help.
The roommate’s mother came to the home after the assault and called
911 “[t]he second she walked in th[e] door.” The child required multiple
surgeries, including the partial removal and reconstruction of her skull. She
will have significant long-term physical and neurological deficits, and she will
never be able to take care of herself. The child was removed from the
mother’s custody, and a no-contact order prohibits contact between the
mother and child. The maternal grandparents have been by the child’s side
essentially since the assault and are hoping to provide a long-term home for
as long as they can care for her.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant
to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (i) (2025). The mother appeals,
challenging only whether termination of her parental rights was in the child’s
2
best interests. We review de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219
(Iowa 2016).
In assessing best interests, we “give primary consideration to the
child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing
and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition
and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).
We could say much about these horrific facts and the mother’s abject
failure to protect the child from physical violence—not only during this
assault but also during whatever events led to older injuries found by
physicians during treatment. No written opinion could adequately capture
the consequences the assault will have on the rest of this child’s life. In an
Iowa Department of Health and Human Services worker’s view, the mother
has “no protective capacity” with regard to the child. The child’s complex
medical needs will require long-term “around the clock” care from multiple
caregivers, and the mother cannot provide that care. The juvenile court
found “little value in [the mother]’s testimony beyond confirmation that she
is continuing to minimize, deny, and obfuscate regarding her own role in the
assault of [the child], and that she continues to fail to take accountability for
the abuse she perpetrated and allowed to be perpetrated against her
daughter.” We agree entirely.
This record speaks for itself. The mother has no protective capacity
toward this child. It is not in the child’s best interests to preserve a
relationship with a parent who, under the least culpable version of events
available, stood by and did nothing while the child was savagely assaulted for
more than an hour.
AFFIRMED.
3