C.A., Mother, Appellant. v. << (2026)

The district court terminated the parental rights of the mother, C.A., to four children: R.E., born in 2011, A.T., born in 2014, Z.T., born in 2015, and R.E., born in 2019. On appeal, the mother challenges the district court's failure to apply a permissive exception. Upon our de novo review, we affirm.

We employ the familiar statutory framework analysis on our de novo review of this case. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39–40 (Iowa 2010). But “if a parent does not challenge a step in our analysis,” then “we need not address it.” In re J.P., No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020). And as here, where the mother only challenges the application of a permissive exception, we address only that issue.

The four children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (the department) in June 2024, amid concerns that the mother was using methamphetamine. While she denied the allegations, she tested positive for methamphetamine. The children expressed fear and concerns while in their mother's home. B.T. is the father of Z.T. and A.T. And R.E. is the father of R.E. and R.E. The children were removed from parental custody in June 2024 and placed in the custody of the department with relative placement with their respective fathers.

All four children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance by order filed in August 2024. Custody remained with the department for relative placement, and the children remained in placement with their respective fathers.

Following the dispositional hearing in October, custody of the children was granted to the respective fathers, subject to the protective supervision of the department. The children were reported to have adjusted well in paternal custody. But the mother continued to struggle to meet case plan expectations. She often canceled or missed supervised scheduled visits, which negatively affected the children. The court held review hearings in January 2025 and May 2025. Following the May hearing, the mother's hair stat result was positive for methamphetamine. In July 2025, the court entered a permanency order, changing the permanency goal from reunification to termination.

The district court held a termination hearing in November 2025. The mother had relapsed on methamphetamine and marijuana in the month before, with the mother indicating she was too intoxicated when she used the methamphetamine to know who supplied the drug. She began inpatient treatment but left after one week.

The record was reopened in February 2026, and the court received evidence that the mother had been arrested in Marshall County in December and charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, driving while barred, and possession of marijuana. The complaint alleged the mother had 21.2 grams of a white crystal substance and a digital scale in her purse. The mother told law enforcement the substance was methamphetamine and that marijuana could also be located in her car. The charges remained pending. The district court later entered an order terminating the mother's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f ) (2025). The mother appeals.

The mother's single issue in her petition on appeal is couched as: “Did the Court commit error in terminating the mother's parental rights when the fathers’ rights were to remain intact?”¹ Although the mother does not cite statutory authority for her argument, we interpret her claim as invoking the permissive exception contained in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a), which provides, “The court need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child if the court finds ․ [a] relative has legal custody of the child.”

Once the State has proven a ground for termination, the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception to termination under section 232.116(3)(a). In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). In support of her claim, the mother argues “the children could be rendered orphans were she to be ready for their care, but one or both of the fathers were to pass away or otherwise be incapable of providing care.”

We reject the mother's request for the application of a permissive exception, concluding she has not met her burden. The mother has been unable to maintain sobriety after nearly two years of reunification services. She has caused considerable upheaval and disruption in the children's lives. And the permissive exceptions contained in section 232.116(3) “are permissive, not mandatory.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014) (quoting In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474–75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011)).

“We may use our discretion, ‘based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best interests of the child, whether to apply the factors in this section to save the parent-child relationship.’ ” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa 2016) (quoting A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 113)). “An appropriate determination to terminate a parent-child relationship is not to be countermanded by the ability and willingness of a family relative to take the child. The child's best interests always remain the first consideration.” In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 174 (Iowa 1997). The mother has not taken advantage of services and is not in a position to safely parent the children. We, like the district court, decline to apply this permissive exception.

Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother's parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While the State addresses a request for an additional six months for reunification services, we do not find this issue has been adequately presented for our review in the mother's petition. But even if we were to consider such issue, to grant an extension, the district court must “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis” for its determination that the need for removal will no longer exist after the additional period of time. Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). The mother does not point to any factors, conditions, or changes, and we find a lack of support for such determination in this record.

Opinion by Schumacher, J.