C.N., Mother, Appellant. v. << (2026)

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that termination is not in the child's best interests and that the juvenile court should have applied an exception to termination due to the closeness of the parent-child bond. Termination is in the child's best interest and the mother has not established that an exception to termination should be applied. We thus affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The family first came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services in February 2024 when the child was less than five months old. The mother and her paramour were suspected of using methamphetamine and were reported to have been in a domestic incident where the paramour swung a bat at the mother. The child was adjudicated as a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA). The child was removed in April 2025 after she tested positive for methamphetamine. Following the mother's lack of progress, the permanency goal was changed to termination of parental rights and a termination petition was filed in December 2025. The juvenile court ultimately terminated the mother's parental rights to the child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2025), and the mother appeals that order.

The department found the mother to be in need of mental-health and substance-use treatment and required resolution of all domestic-abuse concerns. The mother was on probation due to a domestic-abuse conviction. The mother provided numerous positive drug screens, missed many others, and failed to take responsibility for missed or failed screens. The mother successfully completed inpatient substance-use treatment but failed to complete outpatient treatment and has continued to miss almost all scheduled drug screens.

The juvenile court found that the mother “has the opinion that the love she has for the child should be the focus and not whether she is under the influence of substances,” and thus, “has not internalized the necessity to remain sober for her daughter's sake.” The mother has been offered mental-health services but has failed to consistently utilize them.

The juvenile court found that the fully supervised visits with the child have gone well, with the mother being “nurturing, engaged and attentive.” But that visitation began in the community, rather than the home, due to the department's inability to ensure that the home did not contain illegal substances. And the mother's lack of progress has meant that visits have stayed fully supervised. Meanwhile, the child has done well with her placement family, where she is loved and is intended to be adopted. She is thriving in their care and the placement supports an ongoing relationship between the mother and the child.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review appeals of terminations of parental rights de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

DISCUSSION

The mother does not challenge the grounds for termination.¹ She argues the juvenile court's ruling is opposed to the child's best interests and, alternatively, argues an exception to termination should be applied. She contends that the closeness of the parent-child bond precludes termination on both issues. In support of these issues, the mother cites no case law and makes a single reference to Iowa Code section 232.116(2) and (3)(c) (2025). Although “passing reference” to issues “without properly identifying, presenting, and developing” them qualifies as waiver of that issue, In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 534 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025), we nonetheless address the mother's sparse argumentation in the interest of giving full consideration to her appeal.

Under section 232.116(2), we “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.” “A child's mental and emotional condition and needs is inherently impacted by the child's bond with a parent, so the parent-child bond is a relevant consideration in the best-interests analysis.” L.A., 20 N.W.3d at 535. But the best-interests framework is a holistic one, and we consider all the above factors when determining the child's best interests, as “we cannot deprive a child of permanency ․ by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted).

In support of her appeal, the mother explains that “C.N. becomes visually delighted when she sees her mom and sad when visits end” and that the department “had no concerns with [the mother]’s parenting during visits.” This may be true, but successful (albeit fully supervised) visits do not counteract the harm leading to the initial CINA adjudication—the child's positive test for methamphetamine and the mother's struggles with substance use. And the mother's argument relating to visits is consistent with the juvenile court's findings—the court agreed that visits have gone well. But the mother does not dispute the court's further findings that she has consistently failed drug tests and struggles with “continued drug use and noncompliance with mental health counseling and medication management.” Additionally, the court voiced concerns with the mother's paramour's substance use, his lack of drug screens or participation in services, and potential domestic abuse. We find that these factors all heavily outweigh any success the mother has shown during visits. As the juvenile court also observed, the mother continues to fail to take responsibility and still insists her love for the child should be the only relevant inquiry. We disagree.

Because the concerns leading to the initial CINA adjudication still persist, the parent-child bond exception should not be applied here either.² As the juvenile court observed, we “recognize[ ] that [the mother] and [child] have a strong bond,” but find that “stability and consistency lie elsewhere” due to the “potential for continued drug exposure, outbursts due to [the mother] not achieving mental health stability and domestic abuse,” all of which are “more significant than the possible minor [detriment] in terminating rights” at the child's current young age. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Grounds not challenged by the parent are waived on appeal. In re A.S., No. 23-1625, 2023 WL 8449568, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023) (collecting cases).

2.   The State contests error preservation on this claim, asserting that the mother did not argue for this exception at the juvenile court level. The mother's claim fails even assuming without deciding that she has preserved error.

Opinion by Telleen, S.J.