In the Interest of A.C.M. and K.C.M., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 26-1327 Filed October 7, 2026 _______________ In the Interest of A.C.M. and K.C.M., Minor Children, A.C., Mother, Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, The Honorable Richelle Mahaffey, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Denise M. Goneya of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, attorney for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee State. Sam K. Erhardt of Erhardt & Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. 1 SANDY, Judge. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, born in 2022 and 2025, under Iowa Code section 232.116(g) and (h) (2026).1 On appeal, the mother argues that the juvenile court should have granted her an additional six months to work towards reunification based on her progress with her mental-health and substance-use issues. While the mother made some progress in the three months leading to the termination hearing, we agree with the juvenile court that a six-month extension would not eliminate the need for removal. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to both children. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS This mother has been involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services for more than a decade, including the termination of her parental rights to two other children in 2015 and 2016. In those ten years, the mother continuously struggled with illicit substance use, mental-health issues, and was the victim of domestic violence. Before the current case, the mother’s struggles with prescription pain medication led to multiple stays in residential substance use treatment facilities. Despite her time in treatment, the mother struggled to maintain her sobriety. The children in this case are A.C.M. and K.C.M., born in 2022 and 2025, respectively. The family came to the department’s attention in the current case before K.C.M.’s birth when the father assaulted the mother in the family home. The assault occurred in A.C.M.’s presence, and a criminal no-contact order was put in place between the mother and father. While investigating the assault, the mother admitted to a department worker that 1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated, but he does not appeal. 2 she had been abusing her prescription pain medication. The mother then entered a residential treatment facility on March 19, 2025. But she left the facility after a single day. Additional concerns surfaced in May after K.C.M.’s birth. Just after her birth, the child was hospitalized and admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) due to breathing issues and severe meconium staining consistent with opioid withdrawal symptoms. The child tested positive for morphine and several opioids which the mother admitted to taking during her pregnancy. The child received morphine to alleviate the withdrawal symptoms and spent several weeks in the NICU. K.C.M. was finally released from the hospital on June 9. After being discharged, K.C.M. joined her mother at a residential substance use facility the mother had been staying at in Cedar Rapids. But K.C.M.’s specialized medical needs made the treatment facility unworkable, so she was placed with her father who was living with friends in Ottumwa. These domestic violence and drug related concerns led to the children being adjudicated children in need of assistance on June 17. Shortly after the adjudication, the mother was unsuccessfully discharged from the residential treatment facility she had been attending. After leaving the facility, the mother was unemployed and struggled to find housing. In August, safety concerns led to the children’s removal from their father’s care, and they were placed with extended family. Since their removal, the children have not been returned to either parent’s care. Then, in January 2026, the father was incarcerated and later sent to prison due to probation violations. The children have had limited interactions with their father since January, and his incarceration prevented him from fully engaging 3 in services. Since January, the children’s only visits have been with their mother. From September 2025 to March 2026, the mother struggled to engage with the services offered by the department and failed to attend most of her scheduled visits with the children. When she attended visits, the mother was often late, distracted, and had difficulty managing the children. In their reports, department workers repeatedly noted the mother’s failure to engage in services and her uncooperative demeanor when meeting with case workers. The mother finally began engaging in services in March 2026. The mother successfully completed outpatient substance treatment on March 17. She also began mental health treatment shortly afterward. Her therapist reported that the mother had attended scheduled appointments and was working to address her behavioral health and medication management. The mother also found an apartment in April, and the department approved the apartment as suitable housing for the children. This progress proved short-lived—by May the mother fell back into her old habits. The mother started missing her mental health appointments and continued to miss visits with the children. And despite many months of services, the mother remained at fully supervised visitation. Additionally, the mother was unemployed and received multiple citations for driving without a license and was charged with theft on two separate occasions. This lack of progress ultimately led the State to petition for termination of the mother’s parental rights. After a hearing on the petition, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(g) and (h). The 4 juvenile court found that the mother had “been involved with [the department] in an on-and-off fashion for over ten years, and little to no progress has been made.” Regarding the mother’s request for an additional six months to work towards reunification, the court found: Additionally, based on the record before the Court, the evidence does not support that either child could be returned to any parent in the foreseeable future, thus justifying a six-month extension of the dispositional order. [The parents] have not demonstrated enough progress in their stability and services for this Court to conclude that the children could be returned to either of them at the end of an extension. The mother appeals this ruling. On appeal, the mother does not contest the statutory grounds for termination or that termination was in the children’s best interest. Instead, she argues that the juvenile court should have granted her an additional six months to work towards reunification. STANDARD OF REVIEW We conduct a three-step de novo review of termination proceedings that asks whether: (1) the statutory grounds for termination are met; (2) termination is in the best interest of the child; and (3) we should exercise any of the permissive exceptions to termination. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3). Our review is confined to the steps raised by the parent on appeal, along with any ancillary issues. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). DISCUSSION The sole issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court erred when it denied the mother’s request for an additional six months to work towards reunification. But to continue placement for six months, section 232.104(2)(b) requires the court to decide “the need for removal will 5 no longer exist at the end of the extension.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005); see also Iowa Code § 232.117(5) (authorizing entry of an order under section 232.104 in lieu of termination). Like the juvenile court, we cannot make that finding. The mother argues an additional six months was warranted due to the progress she had made since March 2026. In her brief she claims: By the time of the termination hearing, the improvement had already begun and was objectively documented. Mother had not promised to enter substance-abuse treatment; she had successfully completed it. She had not promised to obtain housing; she had obtained suitable housing. She had not promised to address her mental health; she was actively participating in trauma-focused treatment and [therapy], and her therapist reported consistent attendance. She had not promised to begin medication-assisted treatment; she was already participating in it. The relevant question was therefore not whether the court should wait six months hoping Mother might someday begin to change. It was whether the progress already underway provided a reasonable basis to conclude that six additional months would permit Mother to consolidate those gains and address the remaining barriers to safely parenting A.C.M. and K.C.M. Despite the progress with the mother’s sobriety, we, like the juvenile court, are less optimistic of the mother’s ability to address the remaining hurdles towards reunification. While we commend the mother’s completion of her outpatient treatment and her continued sobriety, her progress does not indicate that the need for removal will be alleviated in another six months. As already stated, the mother’s efforts have fallen short throughout the ten years of services. She has never progressed beyond supervised visits, and she still struggles to consistently attend these visits. When she does attend the visits, she requires help from the department workers to manage the children. And while she made a little progress in March and April, the mother continues to neglect the mental health concerns that started this case. The evidence does not support the finding that the need for removal would be alleviated in 6 another six months. In fact, the mother’s ten-year track-record suggests the opposite. Given the lack of progress, delaying permanency is unwarranted. The children have been out of the parents’ care for over a year, and when statutory deadlines for reunification have passed, “termination proceedings must be viewed with a sense of urgency.” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). “It is simply not in the best interests of children to continue to keep them in temporary foster homes while the natural parents get their lives together.” A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 778 (citation omitted). Rather, the child’s best interests are served by termination. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights. AFFIRMED. 7