T.P., Mother, Appellant. v. << (2026)

Drug use, mental health concerns, and unstable housing prevented a mother, Tanya, from resuming custody of her children: thirteen-year-old J.P. and four-year-old B.P. At the termination hearing, Tanya was frank about her situation: “I wouldn't want them back right now because of my instability.” But she added: “I don't think they should permanently be removed either.”

She walks that same line on appeal. She does not contest the State's grounds for termination. But she argues that (1) termination of her parental rights was not in the children's best interests under Iowa Code section 232.116(2) (2026); (2) exceptions to termination applied under section 232.116(3), paragraphs (b) and (c); and (3) a guardianship was warranted. In the alternative, Tanya asks for permanency to be delayed for six months because she was on a “positive trajectory.”

After our independent evaluation of the record, we decline to disturb the termination order.¹ Delaying termination would not be in the children's best interests, no exceptions to termination apply, and a guardianship is not preferable to termination in this case.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

The children were removed from their home in October 2024 after the Department of Health and Human Services was called for a child abuse intake. Tanya allegedly locked her teenaged daughter, M.P., out of the apartment with nowhere to go.² While responding to that situation, child protection workers found the apartment was unsafe for Tanya's two younger children, J.P. and B.P. The workers also noticed that Tanya was under the influence and behaved erratically. She tested positive for methamphetamine and was hospitalized for mental health treatment.

The juvenile court adjudicated J.P. and B.P. as children in need of assistance (CINA) in December 2024. They have never returned to their mother's custody. Since the start of the case, B.P. has been placed with her maternal grandmother. J.P. has lived with his paternal grandmother since May 2025.

As the juvenile court found, Tanya “has done very little to address her mental health since the case started in 2024.” When asked about her lack of progress in 2025, Tanya testified: “I believe that I was in the middle of a nervous breakdown and a mental snap of some sort.” Her mental health concerns were intensified by her substance use. During the CINA case, she used methamphetamine, K2, and marijuana. She claimed that she last used methamphetamine in February 2026, but she missed a series of drug tests after that date.

Tanya also lacked stable housing, staying at motels and then camping. Transportation was likewise a problem for Tanya because she did not have a driver's license and had to rely on others for rides. Beyond those issues, Tanya has faced various criminal charges, including a conviction for the reckless use of fire. Given those impediments, unsurprisingly, Tanya's visits with her children have been inconsistent.

Considering all the barriers to reunification, the juvenile court granted the State's petition to terminate Tanya's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraph (f ).³ She appeals.

II. Analysis

Generally, termination cases follow three steps. A.B., 957 N.W.2d at 294. First, the State must prove a statutory ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1). Id. Second, the State must show termination is in the children's best interests under section 232.116(2). Id. Third, a parent may rely on permissive exceptions to termination under section 232.116(3). Id. We address only those steps disputed on appeal. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

Because the first step is undisputed, we start with step two: best interests. In assessing best interests, our top priorities are the children's safety; the best placement for furthering their long-term nurturing and growth; and their physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs. See In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021) (discussing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). The record shows that Tanya struggles to take care of herself. We do not see how she can safely provide a home for these children. Their growth and development are being nurtured in their relative placements. Allowing the children to move toward permanency in those placements is in their best interests.

We next turn to step three, the permissive exceptions under section 232.116(3), which must be proved by the parent challenging termination. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475–76 (Iowa 2018). Tanya first invokes paragraph (b), which allows the court to forgo termination if “[t]he child is over ten years of age and objects to the termination.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(b). Her son, J.P., was indecisive as to whether he wanted the court to enter a guardianship or the termination of his mother's parental rights at the time of the permanency hearing. But by the time of the termination hearing, his attorney and guardian ad litem (GAL) reported that he was less optimistic about preserving his mother's parental rights: “He was pretty excited, I think, and hopeful after the last hearing. And I don't think that things maybe came to fruition as he hoped and so he's done, I would say.” On this record, Tanya has not offered proof for paragraph (b).

Tanya also cites her strong bond with J.P. and B.P. as a reason to reject termination. True, a court may deny the petition if termination would be detrimental to the children because of the closeness of their relationship to the parent. Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). And here, the GAL confirmed that “they both love their mom.” But Tanya does not point to evidence that the children “will be harmed by termination” or “whether that harm overpowers” her inability to provide safe and stable care. See In re I.D., No. 24-2045, 2025 WL 1076625, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2025). Thus, she cannot carry her burden under paragraph (c).

Interwoven with her arguments under sections 232.116(2) and (3) is Tanya's contention that guardianship would be preferable to termination, especially for J.P., who is already a teenager. She also fears that J.P. will lose his connection with his siblings because they live with maternal family members. As the juvenile court recognized, “the mother's point that the children would be adopted by opposite sides of the family is a fair one.” But we also agree with the juvenile court that “there is no evidence that the children would not continue to see each other or would be adversely affected by the arrangements.” Tanya's advocacy for a guardianship might be more convincing if her day-to-day living were less chaotic. But her marginal progress with substance use, mental health, and housing tilts the scales toward termination.

In that same vein, Tanya requests more time to work toward reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.117(5) (permitting court to deny termination and enter a permanency order under section 232.104). But to continue placement for six months, section 232.104(2)(b) requires the court to decide “the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of the extension.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). We cannot make that finding here. Tanya's future is too uncertain. Waiting longer for permanency is not in the children's best interests. See In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(2).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We review termination proceedings de novo. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). “We are not bound by the factual findings of the juvenile court, though we give them respectful consideration, particularly regarding credibility determinations.” Id.

2.   Tanya's parental rights to M.P. are not at issue in this appeal. The department recommended that M.P. be placed in “another planned permanent living arrangement.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(d)(4).

3.   The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of the children's fathers. The fathers do not appeal.

Opinion by Tabor, C.J.