L.E., Mother, Appellant. v. << (2026)

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.¹ Her sole contention on appeal is that termination is contrary to the children's best interests because less restrictive permanency alternatives are available. Because our de novo review confirms that termination serves the children's best interests, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in May 2023 based on concerns about domestic violence and methamphetamine use occurring in the home. The man with whom the mother was romantically involved strangled the mother in front of the children. He also used methamphetamine in the children's presence, and methamphetamine pipes were found in the home.

The mother's romantic partner assaulted her in front of the children again in July 2023. The State petitioned to adjudicate the children in need of assistance (CINA). In December 2023, the juvenile court entered an order adjudicating the children CINA.

Although the mother was offered services to address the concerns that led to the CINA adjudication, the concerns that led to the CINA adjudication persisted over the next two and one-half years. The mother tested positive for methamphetamine twice in 2024 and continued her romantic relationship after criminal charges were filed against her partner in August 2024. The juvenile court removed the children from the mother's custody in October 2024 but returned them after the mother claimed she was ending her relationship early in 2025. The juvenile court removed the children again in October 2025 after learning the relationship never ended.

The State petitioned to terminate the mother's parental rights in June 2026. A hearing was held the same month. On July 1, the juvenile court terminated the mother's parental rights as to both children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f ) (2026). The mother appeals.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021). While not binding on us, we give weight to the juvenile court's fact findings, “particularly with respect to credibility determinations.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Iowa Code section 232.116 sets out the three-step analysis the court must apply before ruling on a petition to terminate parental rights. First, the court must decide whether the evidence supports one or more of the grounds for termination set out in section 232.116(1). If so, the court considers whether to terminate parental rights using the best-interests framework set out in section 232.116(2). Finally, the court considers whether any of the exceptions to termination described in section 232.116(3) apply. If so, the court need not terminate the parent-child relationship. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3).

The mother does not contest that the State proved the grounds for terminating her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f ). She instead focuses on section 232.116(2), which requires the court to “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). We also “look to the child's long-range as well as immediate interests, consider what the future holds for the child if returned to the parents, and weigh the child's safety and need for a permanent home.” In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 529 (Iowa 2019) (cleaned up).

The mother contends termination does not serve the children's best interests. She notes that permanency has already been achieved for P.W., who is in her father's custody. The mother also argues that the juvenile court failed to adequately consider whether placing Z.F. in a guardianship is a viable alternative to termination.

Following our de novo review of the record, we conclude that terminating the mother's parental rights serves the children's best interests. Our caselaw is clear that once the grounds for termination have been proved, time is of the essence. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (noting that “our legislature has carefully constructed a time frame to provide a balance between the parent's efforts and the child's long-term best interests” and we “do not gamble with the children's future by asking them to continuously wait for a stable biological parent” (cleaned up)). The juvenile court found those grounds have been met because returning the children to the mother's custody would put them at risk of harm that would justify a CINA adjudication. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f ). The mother does not contest this finding, and the concern for the children is not alleviated by the ability and willingness of others to take custody of the children. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475 (Iowa 2018). When the mother shared custody of P.W. with her father, the juvenile court found that “the case was plagued with co-parenting conflict.” And “a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” Id. at 477.

Termination is not a perfect solution, but it serves the children's best interests. Ideally, the mother would have addressed concerns about domestic violence and substance use during the CINA proceedings. Instead, she lied about her relationship and methamphetamine use and stymied HHS rather than using the services offered to her. The mother prioritized her romantic relationship over her relationship with her children. She did so to the children's detriment and to her own. The needs of the children must take precedence. “[A]t some point, the rights and needs of the children rise above the rights and needs of the parent.” In re C.S., 776 N.W.2d 297, 300 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009). Because the children's best interests are served by terminating the mother's parental rights, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The children have different fathers. P.W. is in her father's legal custody. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Z.F.’s father, but he does not appeal.

Opinion by Chicchelly, J.