In the Interest of I.B., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 26-1027 Filed August 19, 2026 _______________ In the Interest of I.B., Minor Child, M.M., Mother, Appellant, D.B., Father, Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, The Honorable Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Taryn R. McCarthy of Clemens, Walters, Conlon, Runde & Hiatt, L.L.P., Dubuque, attorney for appellant mother. Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, attorney for appellant father. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee State. Jennifer Olsen of Olsen Law Firm, Davenport, 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 father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to one child, born in 2024. The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2026). On appeal, the mother argues: (1) the State failed to prove grounds for termination; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; and (3) she should have been granted a six-month extension. The father only argues the court erred by failing to grant a six-month extension. Upon our review, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) became involved with the family soon after the child was born. The child protective worker met with the family at the hospital and learned that the hospital staff were concerned about the mother’s “inability to independently take care of the infant without prompts” and the father’s “mental health as he was being aggressive and controlling.” The father was removed from the hospital because of his unstable mental health. HHS allowed the child to be discharged from the hospital into the parents’ care with a safety plan. The parents were required to stay with family friends approved by HHS and were never to be left alone with the child. Approximately sixteen hours after being discharged from the hospital, the father violated the safety plan by leaving with the child early in the morning. Shortly after, the mother failed to identify that the child needed medical attention. On January 10, 2025, the child was removed from parental care and placed into foster care, where he has remained throughout this case. 3  In March, the child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance. Based on a lack of progress, in January 2026, the State petitioned for the termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights. Throughout this case, the parents were offered supervised visits with the child and other supportive services. While the mother initially struggled with changing the child’s diaper and securing the child in the car, she progressed and could complete those tasks with the child. Yet, at the time of the termination hearing, the mother still struggled with understanding the child’s prompts about when he is hungry or feeling unwell. She was also unable to properly prepare food for the child. For example, a social worker reported that in March 2025, there was an incident when the child was gagging on pizza and the social worker had to intervene to get the mother to choose a different food. The mother relayed this to the father, and he got angry and responded, “What am I supposed to do about it?” The father’s behavior remained a concern throughout the case. At a supervised visit in January 2026, the father became frustrated when the child did not use two hands to hold a sippy cup. The mother stated that the child using one hand was fine because the cup was leak-proof. To prove the mother wrong, the father poured water from the cup onto the mother. Concerns remain about the father’s behavior and interactions with the child. During visits, he scrolled through his phone “either [the] majority of the time or all of the time.” Due to the child’s age, the child was unable to understand the father’s instructions, and this frustrated the father. The father also expressed anger toward the Families First workers. He often stepped out of interactions with the child after expecting the one-year-old to obey his commands. Workers had to intervene because the father could not understand the child’s prompts, like when the child no longer wanted to be held by the father. Additionally, the father was banned from the child’s primary healthcare 4 facility due to his aggressive behavior toward staff. The father did not complete the entirety of the Safe Care parenting program. Both parents have received mental-health treatment during this case. The mother missed some mental-health appointments but attended three in April and had a future appointment scheduled for May. The father attended some mental-health appointments but missed many and had likely run out of his mental-health medication by the time of the termination hearing because it had been so long since his last medication-management appointment. The father had no future appointments scheduled. The father’s therapist reported that he no longer required therapy services, but his testing revealed that he minimized his symptoms. The parents both admitted to using marijuana and to having histories of addiction to controlled substances. The parents both missed a substance screening on February 25, 2026, although HHS had concerns about the father’s substance use. In March, the mother tested negative for all substances, but the father tested positive for marijuana. In the court-appointed special advocate’s (CASA) March report to the court, she noted that the mother had been unable to obtain her birth certificate she had “been trying to get” for nearly two years. The parents struggled to pay bills and rent and were relying on friends for housing. The parents “seem to be dependent on others and social services for nearly every aspect of their lives.” Over the course of the case, the parents missed or cancelled several interactions with the child due to transportation issues and other reasons, such as work or family issues. The CASA recommended termination of the parents’ rights “as soon as possible.” The HHS report to the court prior to the termination hearing stated that “[t]he parents do not 5 understand normal childhood development and are unable to prioritize [the child’s] needs over their own.” The termination hearing took place over two days, ending on May 6. The HHS social worker case manager testified at the hearing that the termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the child. Additionally, the social worker testified that the child could not be returned at the time of the termination hearing due to the father’s mental health and both parents’ inability to follow the child’s prompts. Specific safety concerns were that the father easily gets frustrated with child and has held him too tightly, which “could lead to [the child] severely getting hurt,” and that the child may not be fed or have his medical needs met. A Families First support worker testified at the termination hearing that she had concerns if both the mother and father were unsupervised with the child. Later that month, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s and father’s rights. The mother and father appeal. II. Standard of Review. We review termination proceedings de novo. In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 532 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc). “[O]ur fundamental concern” in review of termination of parental rights proceedings “is the child’s best interests.” In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014). III. Analysis. We apply a three-step analysis in our review of the juvenile court’s decision to terminate parental rights, asking whether (1) a statutory ground for termination is satisfied, (2) the child’s best interests are served by 6 termination, and (3) a statutory exception should be applied to preclude termination. See In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3). We will not address grounds not raised by the parents. We consider each parent’s appeal separately because “each parent’s parental rights are separate adjudications.” In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). A. Mother’s Appeal. While the mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), she does not contest the grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(d). Consequently, she waived her challenge to the statutory grounds for termination. Due to the mother’s waiver, we do not need to address her challenge that the grounds for termination were not proven. See In re P.S., No. 19-0326, 2019 WL 2880044, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. July 3, 2019). Next, the mother argues that termination is not in the child’s best interests due to their bond. Under our best-interests analysis, 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). “In determining the best interests of the child, we look to the parent’s past performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future.” In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (cleaned up). The mother and child do have a bond, but the mother has not progressed to being able to safely care for the child. In fact, the mother never progressed beyond supervised visits because of safety concerns. As the case progressed, the mother demonstrated a continuing inability to meet basic needs of the child without heavy reliance on the various service providers. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 708–09 7 (Iowa 2010) (finding the mother’s “current inability to anticipate and provide for her son’s long-term welfare is a rocky foundation in which a child cannot find permanency”). The “defining elements” of the child’s best interests are the child’s safety and “need for a permanent home.” In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted). The child’s guardian ad litem reported that the child “is thriving” in the foster parents’ care and is “very bonded to” them. The child’s foster parents plan to adopt the child. Termination, which will allow the child to achieve permanency through adoption, is in the child’s best interests. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 478 (Iowa 2018) (deciding termination was in the child’s best interests because the child “deserve[d] a normal life with an adoptive family”); see also In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (“A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best interests.”). The best interests of the child require terminating the mother’s parental rights. Finally, the mother argues she should have been granted an additional six months to work toward reunification. We commend the mother for engaging in services and improving her parenting skills. That said, to implement an additional six months, the juvenile court must be able to “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination that the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). But it could not, and we cannot. So we agree with the juvenile court that based on the mother’s actions and inaction, we “cannot find that the [mother] would be able to demonstrate an ability to safely parent [the child] any time in the near 8 or distant future.” Thus, this child will not be disadvantaged by the termination of the mother’s parental rights but will instead achieve stability and permanency through adoption. See In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518, 524 (Iowa 2020) (finding “[i]t is time for [the child] to have permanency” after observing the parent’s lack of progress beyond supervised visits and the child’s stronger bond with the foster family). For these reasons, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. B. Father’s Appeal. The father solely argues that he should have been granted an additional six months to work toward reunification. He asserts that a brief extension of time would allow him to “explore the recommendations in [his] third psychological evaluation, obtain employment, and gain additional parenting experience.” But we disagree that the father can achieve the results that would prevent removal of the child from his custody. Throughout this case, the father has not progressed beyond fully supervised visits with the child. The father did not take full advantage of services offered to him. Even with receiving some treatment, the father’s demeanor had not progressed to the point where he could safely care for the child or monitor his emotions. Staff were still concerned that the father was not focused during visits with the child, often being on his phone or leaving the room. Additionally, safety concerns remained because the father got frustrated with the child, called the child demeaning names, did not respond to the child’s prompts, and held the child too tightly. His parenting skills reflected a basic misunderstanding of the child’s developmental level. As the HHS social worker opined, “one of the immediate [safety concerns] would be that [the father] gets very frustrated easily with [the child] and his 9 frustration and the way that he has held [the child] tightly or has told him in demeaning ways . . . could lead to [the child] severely getting hurt.” The father’s anger issues prevented the parents from receiving transportation from Families First workers because of his previous hostility toward them. And as the HHS social worker also noted, the father has not addressed his admitted addiction to controlled substances, nor has he shown commitment to his mental-health treatment. After reviewing the record, we are unable to conclude that “the need for removal . . . will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We affirm the denial of the father’s request for an extension. IV. Conclusion. We conclude that termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests and affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED. 10