Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
In the INTEREST OF D.W. and G.W., Minor Children, B.B., Mother, Appellant.
The juvenile court terminated the mother's parental rights to G.W. (born in 2019) and D.W. (born in 2023) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2024), respectively.1 The mother appeals, arguing (1) the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children; (2) the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination because the children could have been returned to her custody at the time of the termination trial; (3) alternatively, she should be given more time to work toward reunification; (4) termination of her parental rights is not in the children's best interests; and (5) the juvenile court should have applied a permissive exception to save the parent-child relationships.
As the mother recognized during her testimony at the termination trial, G.W. and D.W. could not be returned to her custody because they could not live with her at the sober living home where she resided. Plus, the mother had not achieved long-term sobriety or shown that she could be successful outside of a structured residential program. Giving the mother more time to work toward reunification is not in G.W.’s or D.W.’s best interests, especially when we consider the trauma the juvenile court described that impacted her relationship with G.W. and safety concerns related to both children. Both children were legally removed from parental custody for more than two years before the end of the termination trial in February 2025. By then, G.W. generally did not want to attend visits with the mother, and D.W.—who was removed at birth—had never lived with the mother. Neither child should have to wait longer for a safe, permanent home. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (“A child's safety and need for a permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child's best interests.”).
Using de novo review, see id. at 798, we carefully examined the record, the briefs of the parties, and the juvenile court's lengthy, fact-intensive, and thorough ruling. We approve of the reasons and conclusions in the termination order and determine a full opinion would not augment or clarify existing case law. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e). We affirm without further opinion.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. The father's parental rights were also terminated; he does not appeal.
GREER, Judge.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 25-0728
Decided: September 04, 2025
Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)