In the Interest of L.T. and E.N., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 26-0630 Filed October 7, 2026 _______________ In the Interest of L.T. and E.N., Minor Children, B.T., Mother, Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, The Honorable Joseph McCarville, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Joel Baxter of Baxter & Wild Law Offices, P.C., Guthrie Center, attorney for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee State. Jessica L. Morton of Bruner, Bruner, Reinhart & Morton, LLP, Carroll, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Buller, J. 1 BULLER, Judge. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children born in 2017 and 2021. She challenges the denial of additional time and the statutory grounds for termination. We affirm. Background Facts and Proceedings. The children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2024, when the mother’s parents relayed concerns that the mother was using methamphetamine. A few days after the county attorney requested the children be adjudicated in-need-of-assistance (CINA), the older child walked from the mother’s house to a neighbor’s home, crying and asking for his grandparents, who were contacted and came to get the child, all without the mother noticing the child was gone. The mother generally refused to comply with HHS’s investigation and safety plan. Both children were removed; the youngest was placed with his father, and the oldest with the maternal grandparents. During juvenile-court proceedings, the social services worker often observed indicators of drug use by the mother. The department requested frequent drug tests, and the mother almost always failed to attend them. During visits, the mother would often get angry and yell at the children, make critical comments about the children’s caretakers, and was generally overwhelmed when trying to care for the children. At a visit one month before trial, the social services worker nearly called the police when the mother began acting violently and irrationally toward the children: the mother asked one of the children if they were “still kicking [her] fucking seat” during a short drive; while shopping at a store afterward, the mother grabbed and threw one of the child’s toys. She then demanded the worker 2 call someone so she could take her children home while she and the children cried. By trial, the mother described the visits as going “well.” The mother obtained a substance-abuse evaluation in early 2026, but she did not like the recommendation for extended outpatient treatment and did not follow it. Days before trial, the mother obtained another substance- abuse evaluation—without any information provided to HHS—and claimed the new evaluation did not recommend treatment. Consistent with recommendations from HHS, the county attorney, and the children’s guardian ad litem, the court terminated the mother’s rights to the children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f ) and (l) (2026). The mother appeals, and we review de novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021). Additional Time. First, the mother asserts she should have been granted additional time to resume custody of the children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b). “[T]he juvenile court may deny termination and give the parent an additional six months for reunification only if the need for removal ‘will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.’” In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)). The parent bears the burden to make that showing. Id. The mother points to recent limited progress she had made toward reunification, including substance-abuse testing and her improved communication with social services. But this ignores her behavior throughout the CINA proceedings—at least forty missed drug tests (including ten in the three months before trial), missed scheduled visits, and a pattern of noncompliance with social services. The mother’s recent progress was not enough to meet her burden to prove she could safely resume 3 custody within six months. The juvenile court correctly denied the request for additional time. Statutory Elements. The mother challenges all statutory grounds for termination. When a juvenile court terminates a parent’s rights on multiple grounds, we need only find one statutory ground supported by clear and convincing evidence to affirm. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We elect to review under section 232.116(1)(f ). The mother made no argument as to the age, adjudication, and removal elements; she only disputes the last element—whether the children could have been safely returned to her at the time of trial. See W.T., 967 N.W.2d at 322. Again, the mother points to the progress she made late in the proceedings. But this ignores that the children never attended an unsupervised visit at the mother’s home, and she has struggled supervising both children when out in the community. She has yet to pursue substance- abuse or mental-health treatment. The failure to progress to unsupervised visits is an important consideration in determining whether a parent will be able to safely resume custody. See, e.g., In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 533 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc). HHS was unable to inspect the mother’s most recent home—which she shares with an individual who has not completed a background check—and could not determine if the mother could provide safe housing for the children. Both children had been removed for more than a year at the time of the termination trial. Both children are fairly young, and their current familial placements offer the permanency and support they need. The juvenile court properly determined the mother could not safely resume custody of either child at the time of the termination hearing. AFFIRMED. 4