In the Interest of A.M. and D.M., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 26-1339 Filed November 4, 2026 _______________ In the Interest of A.M. and D.M., Minor Children, S.W., Mother, Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, The Honorable Thomas J. Straka (termination order) and The Honorable Monica Zrinyi Ackley (motion for new trial), Judges. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Taryn R. McCarthy of Clemens, Walters, Conlon, Runde & Hiatt, L.L.P., Dubuque, attorney for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee State. Patricia Reisen-Ottavi, Dubuque, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. 1 SCHUMACHER, Judge. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughters, born in 2021 and 2022.1 She claims the district court erred by concluding her children could not safely be returned to her custody, denying her request for additional time to work toward reunification, and denying her motion for a new trial. She also maintains that termination is not in the children’s best interests due to the closeness of the parent-child bond. We review appeals of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings under our familiar three-step analysis.2 See In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3) (2025). DISCUSSION I. Grounds for Termination The court found grounds authorizing termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (l).3 We may affirm on any one ground supported by the evidence. See In re A.B., 815 1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 2 Our review of the termination decision is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). We review the court’s denial of the mother’s motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). 3 We observe that the findings of fact in the district court’s termination order state, “Based upon the evidence received at the time of hearing, the Court finds the State has met its burden in establishing that all elements of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (as to [D.M.]); 232.116(1)(f ) as to [A.M.]; and 232.116(1)(l).” But in the court’s conclusions of law and the subsequent order on post-trial motions, the court mentions termination under paragraphs (h) and (l) only. And in their briefs on appeal, neither party discusses termination under paragraph (f ). 2 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We elect to focus on paragraph (l), which provides that the district court may terminate parental rights when: (1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96 and custody has been transferred from the child’s parents for placement pursuant to section 232.102. (2) The parent has a severe substance use disorder as described by either of the following: (a) The severe substance use disorder meets the definition for that term as defined in the most current edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual prepared by the American psychiatric association, and the parent presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts. (b) The disorder is evidenced by continued and repeated use through the case, the parent’s refusal to obtain a substance use disorder evaluation or treatment after given the opportunity to do so, and the parent presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts. (3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s prognosis indicates that the child will not be able to be returned to the custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time considering the child’s age and need for a permanent home. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(l). The mother appears to challenge only the third element, contending “[t]he evidence presented at the termination hearing on December 15, 2026 does not support a finding that the children could not have been placed with [her] at that time.”4 For the following reasons, we find that the State proved 4 Specifically, the mother does not dispute that the children have been adjudicated children in need of assistance, custody has been transferred from the children’s parents, and that she has a severe substance-use disorder. See id. § 232.116(1)(l)(1)–(2). 3 a statutory ground for the termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(l). The mother has a long history of substance use, beginning with her abuse of prescription drugs as a teenager. At the time of the termination hearing, the mother was twenty-eight years old. She testified she began using methamphetamine in 2023. Both A.M. and D.M. were born testing positive for illegal substances. The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services initiated voluntary services for the family in July 2024. 5 At the time, the mother was living in a domestic violence shelter with the children. The mother and the children tested positive for methamphetamine, and the mother acknowledged she regularly used the drug in the presence of the children. The department also noted concerns about domestic violence in the parents’ relationship and the lack of stable housing, employment, and a lack of supervision of the children. The mother continued to use methamphetamine, and she declined inpatient treatment. The children were removed from her custody in November 2024. They were adjudicated children in need of assistance and placed in foster care. The mother participated in inpatient treatment twice but relapsed shortly thereafter both times. The State initiated termination proceedings in late September 2025. One week later, the mother entered another substance- use treatment center. The termination hearing took place in December. The mother testified that she was engaged in treatment and her “current level” was “partial hospitalization.” She stated that she was able to remain at the treatment 5 The family was previously involved with the department in 2021 and 2023. 4 center for “a total of 10 months, . . . so like 7 and a half more months.” She testified that the treatment center would help her find housing and she also intended to look for a job. The children could live with her at the treatment center, and she requested the court return the children to her custody. The district court denied the mother’s request, noting she had engaged in treatment “at least” three times but had “been unable to demonstrate her ability to maintain her sobriety outside of a structured setting.” The mother stated that this time she “chose the long-term treatment” because she knew her “recovery is going to be a long constant process for [her] near future.” Over the past year, the mother’s longest period of sobriety was thirty days, aside from her current stretch in treatment. The mother tested positive for a controlled substance upon her arrival to the center, and she admitted she last used “the day before [she] went.” In addition, although the mother testified she was no longer in a relationship with the father, she acknowledged the parents had engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence. And she further testified she had been around the father despite their no-contact order, explaining, “Listen, it’s a no-contact order. It wasn’t that big of a deal.” Following our review of the record, although we commend the mother’s progress in recognizing and working toward addressing her addiction, we concur with the court that the children could not be returned to her custody within a reasonable time considering their age and need for a permanent home. Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(l) was satisfied. II. Best Interests The mother also claims that termination was not in the children’s best interests. To determine best interests, we “give primary consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term 5 nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The mother maintains termination is not in the children’s best interests “in light of the bond that [she] shared with the children.” From the outset of this case, the department caseworker documented that the children were happy to see the mother during visits. However, the caseworker also noted the children were thriving in the home of the foster family, where they were “learning about structure and routine and trying to soak it in.” The children’s behavioral issues and verbal delays had improved. The foster parents helped coordinate visits with the mother’s relatives who were hoping to be a long-term placement for the children. Under the facts and circumstances presented in this case, even considering the bond between the mother and the children, we conclude termination of her parental rights is in the children’s best interests. See In re B.S., No. 20-1643, 2021 WL 609093, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2021) (considering the bond between a mother and child in the best-interests analysis). III. Additional Time to Work Toward Reunification and Motion for New Trial The mother contends that the court erred in denying her an extension of time to continue to work toward reunification.6 She points to her testimony 6 As part of this claim, the mother persists that the court “erroneously” found she was on her third attempt at treatment at Heart of Iowa. However, the State agreed the termination order should be amended to reflect that the mother had not been at the Heart of Iowa treatment center three times but instead that she had been in an inpatient treatment program three times. And this error was corrected by the court in a July 2026 order on the mother’s post-trial motions. There, the court stated, “Despite the fact the Court herein will correct the error about the time the mother spent in the Heart of Iowa, [it] does not change the fact she had been involved in treatment on multiple occasions over 6 at the termination hearing “regarding her plan to remain in treatment and obtain a job.” She further argues that by the time of the court’s acceptance of the March 19, 2026 letter from Heart of Iowa into the record, the record supports a finding that in the three months after the termination hearing, as opposed to falling apart and giving up, [the mother] continued in her treatment, and had progressed through another phase of that programming such that she had secured employment. Given that additional evidence, the mother maintains the court erred by denying her motion for a new trial “to address the change in circumstances since entry of the Termination Order given the three month delay in an order being rendered.” We address these claims collectively. An extension of time is appropriate only if “the need for removal . . . will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). Here, the mother had not progressed beyond supervised visits. And she remained in a controlled environment with a track record of relapses when she was not. The caseworker stated that the mother’s “reporting is not always honest,” which the caseworker considered a “problem in moving forward for reunification,” especially considering the children’s young ages and inability to self-protect. The caseworker also discussed the mother’s history of failing to take her mental-health medications, which triggered her to relapse. Indeed, the mother acknowledged her need for medications to regulate her mental-health diagnoses, and she testified that she believed she was doing well on her current medications but that “[w]henever I’m not in a controlled setting like this, I tend to forget to take the medications.” almost five years and could not show sobriety outside of a confined and structured setting, with substantial support and accountability.” 7  On the question of whether the mother should be granted additional time, the guardian ad litem opined, “We need more than watching mom in a regulated setting before we put children this young back in her care.” The guardian ad litem further stated: I disagree that in the last two years all came crashing down. I would agree that in the last two years all came crashing down for mom, but these children have been involved with services and have been recipients of neglect their entire young lives. Services have been in place four separate times to try to help the parents with the same four issues: Substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, and overall general stability. And we have actually gone backwards despite three voluntary cases. .... With regard to substance abuse, it cannot be overlooked that this most recent treatment coincided with mom’s again homelessness. She had a year of free housing, a year to focus when her kids were already removed on getting a job, on meeting with providers. It wasn’t enough for her to have the children removed to focus on those, but being homeless apparently was, and the reality is if she left there early, she still has nowhere to go. So that can and probably should be considered a major factor as to why she is still there. I hope for her sake that she is staying there for long- term sobriety because whatever this Court does isn’t going to change the fact that she is 28 years old and has a very long road to recovery in front of her. But by her own admission, she has not had more than 30 days of sobriety outside of a custodial setting, and to place those kids into an artificially secure setting when we have that sort of a track record is risky and disregards their needs and their rights. As far as mental health goes, we are at the same issues that we had before and, again, boredom. I’m bored, I’m lazy, I can’t remember to take my medication. There might be a plan that somebody can call me once a day to take a med. We need more self-reliance and self-responsibility than that if we’re going to put two very young children in mother’s care, and those are things that may be there, may not be there. This isn’t a plan. The domestic violence has been an ongoing issue, and quite honestly it’s hard to know who the perpetrator is. It appears they both have their own cycles of domestic violence. Unless and until that’s addressed by 8  both parents, they’re at risk to repeat that cycle with each other or with other similarly situated persons. The fact that on mom’s own testimony today, she admits to ongoing contact with him because in the moment she doesn't feel that she is at risk indicates a huge lack of insight. We concur that the mother failed to establish that additional time would have fixed the concerns that prevented reunification with the children thus far. Under this record, we cannot find that additional time would result in a different outcome for the mother. In denying the mother’s motion for a new trial, the court found: “The children’s best interests dictate foremost. They have waited for sober and stable parents for a long enough period of time and that was not forthcoming at the time of trial in December of 2025.” We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s ruling. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. AFFIRMED. 9