In the Interest of C.O., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 26-0963 Filed September 2, 2026 _______________ In the Interest of C.O., Minor Child, B.E.P., Mother, Appellant, D.P., Father, Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, The Honorable Richelle Mahaffey, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS _______________ Debra A. George of Griffing & George Law Firm, PLC, Centerville, attorney for appellant mother. Jonathan Willier, Centerville, attorney for appellant father. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee State. Julie De Vries of De Vries Law Office, PLC, Centerville, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child. _______________ 1  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Greer, P.J. 2 GREER, Presiding Judge. A mother and legal father (the parents) separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to one child, born in 2016.1 The parents argue the State failed to prove grounds for termination, termination was not in the child’s best interests, exceptions to termination apply, and a guardianship should be established in lieu of termination. On our review, we affirm. The child is the sixth oldest of the mother’s eleven children. He has a different biological father than his siblings, but his legal father is the biological father of his five younger siblings. Three of his older siblings are adults; the other two are in guardianships with the maternal grandmother. The family has a long history of involvement with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services. Most recently, the child and his younger siblings were adjudicated children in need of assistance in May 2024 and removed from the parents’ custody in August. In August 2025, the State filed petitions to terminate the parents’ rights to all six children. This child’s termination-of-parental-rights case was in lockstep with the other children’s cases until issues arose serving notice on his biological father, causing his case to be delayed. In February 2026, the juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights to the five youngest children, finding statutory grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2025). A panel of our court affirmed the termination order on appeal. See generally In re C.P., No. 26-0421, 2026 1 The biological father’s rights were also terminated; he does not appeal. 3 WL 1815598, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 24, 2026). We incorporate C.P.’s recitation of facts into this opinion. Id. at *1–8. After their rights to the youngest children were terminated, the parents did not meaningfully participate in services, including drug testing. The parents indicated they no longer wanted to work with Family-Centered Services or participate in supervised visits with the child. They continued having informal contact with the child, who was living with the maternal great-grandparents. The juvenile court held the termination-of-parental-rights trial concerning this child on May 12 and 13. On May 20, the court entered its order terminating the parents’ rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e). The mother and legal father appealed. We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 532 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc). On our review, we agree with the juvenile court that, as to both parents, the State proved grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) (requiring the State to prove, among other elements, “that the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child . . . and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so”). We also agree that termination of the parents’ rights is in the child’s best interests. See id. § 232.116(2) (requiring courts to “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”); In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997) (“When making [the best-interests] decision, we look to the parents’ past performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable 4 of providing in the future.”). We do not find any permissive exceptions to termination apply here. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3). Finally, we conclude a guardianship is not appropriate in this case for several reasons, including financial concerns. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2018) (“[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” (citation omitted)). The parents have made little, if any, progress since the termination of their rights to the youngest children. Our analysis of the parents’ arguments regarding those children applies equally here. See C.P., 2026 WL 1815598, at *9–14. As the guardian ad litem noted at the termination trial, this child has “had temporary situations for years and years, and he deserves a permanent home.” And other family members are willing to adopt the child. We affirm the juvenile court’s detailed termination order without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d)–(e). AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. 5