S.L., Mother, Appellant. v. << (2026)

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of a mother and father of a child, born in 2023, following founded reports of physical abuse toward the child. On appeal, the mother and father both challenge the determination that termination is in the child's best interests and argue that the court erred by terminating their parental rights instead of placing the child in a guardianship. We affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

L.L. was born in 2023. The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) became involved with the family in April 2024 following allegations that the father physically abused the child, resulting in bruises around the child's eye and a broken rib. The child was eight months old at the time of the investigation. The child's maternal grandmother also told HHS that she observed bruising around the child's eye, left cheek, and chest when L.L. was four months old. The parents’ explanations for the child's injuries were inconsistent with observations made by medical professionals. Based on HHS's investigation and statements of medical professionals, the child's injuries were considered non-accidental.

L.L. was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) on November 13, 2024. Throughout the CINA proceedings, the parents denied knowledge as to how the child was injured until the father admitted he may have bruised the child's face when he was “playing ․ too rough” with L.L. No explanation was given as to how the child received a broken rib. The parents have not taken advantage of every opportunity to visit the child, and have not actively participated in the child's care, including the child's medical care, or in assisting with the child's morning or evening routines. The parents have declined to take responsibility for and have shifted blame about the abuse. They have repeatedly declined to change their schedules to meet the child's needs. Neither parent has meaningfully engaged in mental health therapy.

Additionally, there are serious concerns about the condition of the mother's home, which was infested with mice and cockroaches at various points during the case. There were mice droppings in the child's toys, and little progress has been made to improve the condition of the home since April 2024. There was no hot water in the home at the time of trial. The father had recently moved to a motel that the child cannot visit, as sex offenders frequently reside at the motel, but he was looking for a new residence at the time of trial.

After the court gave a six-month extension to the parents, the State petitioned to terminate the mother's and father's parental rights on February 17, 2026. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights on May 20, and both parents appeal separately.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review termination of parental rights proceedings de novo.” In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2020). “While we are not bound by the juvenile court's factual findings, we accord them weight, especially in assessing witness credibility.” Id.

DISCUSSION

We use a three-step process to determine whether: (1) a statutory ground for termination has been established, (2) termination is in the child's best interests, and (3) any permissive exceptions to termination should be applied. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021). If a parent does not challenge a step, we need not address it. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

I. Best Interests

The parents do not challenge the grounds for termination. Both the mother and father argue that termination was not in the best interests of the child. Iowa Code section 232.116(2) (2026) provides that when deciding “whether to terminate the rights of a parent under this section, the court shall 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.”

The father argues that terminating his parental rights would destroy his bond with the child, which would not be in the child's best interests. The mother asserts the same—that it is clear from visits that she and the child love one another—and that it would not negatively affect the child if the mother were given more time to work toward reunification. But neither parent has taken responsibility for nor has been able to provide an adequate explanation as to how the child received a broken rib. The HHS case worker testified that after the investigation, HHS determined L.L.’s broken rib was a result of child abuse. And although the father participated in therapy, he and his therapist never directly addressed the alleged abuse. The father only worked on general mental health issues with the therapist without discussing the actual incidents that triggered the HHS investigation.

We also have concerns about the child's ability to return to living with either the father or the mother. At the time of trial, the father testified that he did not feel as though L.L. could visit him because he was living at a motel where sex offenders are known to stay or live. The mother testified to her house not having hot water at the time of trial, as well as an ongoing cockroach infestation.

Based on the parents’ inability to take responsibility for or explain how the child received her injuries, lack of willingness to address the alleged abuse in therapy, and inability to effectively engage with services, coupled with the inability for the child to return to either of the parents’ residences, termination is in the child's best interests. We have no doubt the parents love their child, but a parent's love for their children is not enough to prevent termination. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010).

The father separately asserts that his parental rights should not be terminated because he was making progress to resume full-time care for the child, and he had worked to ameliorate any harm caused to the child. He claims he ameliorated the harm by admitting that he was “possibly playing ‘too rough’ with [the] child.” A parent must acknowledge and recognize abuse “for any meaningful change to occur.” In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). “Without this acknowledgment, the services provided [are] not likely to be effective.” Id. The child suffered from two separate physical injuries in two separate instances. The father has not accepted responsibility for instances of physical harm to the child. The father has engaged in some services, but we are doubtful about their effectiveness considering his unwillingness to acknowledge the full extent of the abuse. The father has not ameliorated the harm caused to the child.

II. Guardianship

Both parents argue the child should be placed in a guardianship with L.L.’s maternal grandmother, as the child is already residing with her and “[i]t is likely the child will continue to have contact with [the] parents” regardless.

“The court need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child if ․ [a] relative has legal custody of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a). First, the child is not in a relative's legal custody. The child is in HHS's legal custody. And “a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted). The child is doing well in the grandmother's care according to HHS. The record also shows there is still some conflict between the parents and the child's grandmother, and a guardianship would leave the parents’ right to visit the child intact and limit the grandmother's ability to refuse them, potentially creating more conflict and instability for the child. L.L. needs stability in a loving home, which she currently has. “We cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” Id. at 474 (cleaned up). Given the contentious relationship between the parents and the grandmother and the child's need for stability, placing the child in a guardianship is not appropriate.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Opinion by Sandy, J.