S.R., Father, Appellant. v. << (2026)

The father of a child born in 2023 appeals the termination of his parental rights. The mother's parental rights were also terminated, but she does not appeal. The father challenges the best-interests determination and advocates for a guardianship as an alternative to termination. We affirm.

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been involved with this family since a traffic stop in December 2024. The child was in the car with the father and mother when police found a rubber tube with methamphetamine and cocaine residue in the parents’ possession. The parents refused drug testing at that time, and HHS removed the child from their custody and placed the child with his maternal grandmother and her husband. A subsequent hair test showed the child was exposed to methamphetamine and THC, but the parents’ drug tests were only positive for methamphetamine. HHS moved the child's placement to the paternal grandparents. The child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance. The paternal grandparents were not a long-term care option and had some conflict with providers, so the child was moved again to placement with the maternal grandfather and his longtime girlfriend.

From the start, HHS's primary concern with the father was his sobriety. The father told HHS that he had intermittently struggled with substance-abuse problems for about twenty years. He completed a substance-abuse evaluation that recommended outpatient treatment, and his hair tests and sweat patches tested positive for methamphetamine. The father disclosed methamphetamine use to HHS, and HHS workers later independently observed indicia of drug abuse. Starting in mid-2025, the father generally refused drug testing and ongoing substance-abuse treatment. He later provided some evidence that he had attended limited therapy sessions and obtained an evaluation, but he was unsuccessfully discharged after missing back-to-back appointments and did not reengage. In the lead-up to trial, he was not engaged in any services. The father has some criminal history, including substance-abuse-related offenses, harassment, and criminal mischief. He failed to appear for a possession-of-drug-paraphernalia trial while the juvenile case was underway.

The child is doing well living with his current pre-adoptive placement. The father had sporadic visits with the child over the life of the case, but he did not maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child and did not assume any of the duties of being a parent.

The county attorney, HHS, and the child's guardian ad litem all recommended termination of parental rights. The father's attorney conceded the child could not be safely returned to his custody as of trial, disputing only the child's best interests and urging a guardianship. The juvenile court terminated the father's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l) (2025). The father appeals, challenging whether termination is in the child's best interests and partially reprising his guardianship argument. Our review is de novo. In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).

In determining best interests, we give primary weight “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). The juvenile court found, and we agree, that the father “made minimal progress” over the life of the juvenile case. His substance-abuse and mental-health needs remain unaddressed, and the father acknowledged he could not safely care for the child as of trial. In contrast, the child is doing well in his placement. We agree with the juvenile court that termination of the father's parental rights is in the child's best interests.

A partial argument urging guardianship is buried within the father's argument addressing best interests. Assuming without deciding the issue is adequately presented, we discern no basis for reversal. “[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted). We consider all the surrounding circumstances, including the age of the child, the length of removal, the relationship between the parent and the potential guardian, “and the availability of other viable permanency options.” See id. at 478. We have observed before that guardianships generally “provide less stability” than termination and adoption, especially for a young child. In re M.S., No. 24-1545, 2025 WL 52857, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2025). We agree with the juvenile court that the circumstances of this case do not warrant a guardianship in lieu of termination.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion by Buller, J.