A.A., Mother, Appellant. v. << (2026)

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights concerning a child born in 2024. The putative father of the child is unknown, and the termination of his parental rights is not at issue. We affirm termination of the mother's parental rights.

Background Facts and Proceedings. The child came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after testing positive for marijuana at birth. HHS and social workers started voluntary services with the mother shortly after the child's birth. About a year later, the juvenile court became involved in the case and adjudicated the child to be in need of assistance, removing legal custody from the mother and placing it with HHS. The child had been placed with the maternal grandmother under a safety plan for several months before adjudication, and HHS continued that placement through the termination trial.

HHS became concerned about domestic violence in the home. The mother has lived with her paramour for most of the child's life; she admitted to HHS in early 2025 that they “both put their hands on each other when they get upset.” She also told social services she did not want to return to her hometown because she was “afraid he [would] do something to [her] family.” Service workers and HHS documented the mother's paramour engaging in threatening and controlling behavior, including at least one assault that left a bruise on the mother's arm. An incident in early 2025 resulted in a founded child abuse assessment for both the mother and paramour following domestic abuse committed in front of the child.

At trial, the mother again admitted she and her paramour had domestic abuse issues and he had “put[ ] his hands” on her in the past, but she claimed they had “been getting along for like a month” without arguing or being physically violent. The mother noted her paramour would get mad if she engaged in friendly conversation with male co-workers, and she did not think he would be interested in couples counseling. Despite this, the mother said she was still trying to improve the relationship. But the caseworker did not believe the mother was internalizing any concerns about the dangerous nature of her relationship, and the mother denied any need for individual therapy.

The juvenile court found the child could not be safely returned to the mother largely because of her continued relationship with the paramour and the associated domestic violence. Consistent with recommendations from HHS, the county attorney, and the child's guardian ad litem, the court terminated the mother's rights to the child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2026). The mother appeals, and we review de novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).

Additional Time. First, the mother asserts she should have been granted additional time pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b). “[T]he juvenile court may deny termination and give the parent an additional six months for reunification only if the need for removal ‘will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.’ ” In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)). The parent bears the burden to make that showing. Id. The mother has not addressed the domestic violence and other relationship issues. She intends to remain with the abusive paramour and has not met her burden to prove she could safely resume custody within six months. The juvenile court correctly denied the request for additional time.

Statutory Elements. Second, the mother challenges only one of the statutory elements of the ground for termination—whether the child could be safely returned to her custody as of trial. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4). In her petition on appeal, she points to her request for additional time and her ability to furnish an apartment to house the child. But the mother's arguments fail to address the juvenile court's biggest concern: her abusive relationship and the danger posed by domestic violence. Despite the mother's claim that physical violence between the two had decreased, verbal arguments and controlling behaviors seem to be the norm. “The threat to [a child] posed by domestic violence in their home may serve as the basis for terminating parental rights.” In re J.R., No. 17-0556, 2017 WL 2684405, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 21, 2017); see also In re M.H., No. 24-1057, 2024 WL 4503212, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2024) (collecting cases). The juvenile court correctly found the child could not safely be returned to the mother's custody at the time of trial.

Best Interests. Finally, the mother also asserts termination is not in the child's best interests due to severing the parent–child bond. In assessing 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). While the mother and child have a generally good relationship, we ultimately agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the child's best interests. As a service worker noted in an early report to the juvenile court, the mother appeared to be “putting her relationship before her [child's] safety, happiness, and well-being.” The child needs permanency and a home free from domestic violence and abusive relationships. The child's current placement offers this; the mother, by the consequences of her own choices, cannot.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion by Buller, J.