IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 26-1161
Filed October 21, 2026
In the Interest of E.S. and O.H., Minor Children,
S.F., Mother,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Susan Cox, Judge.
AFFIRMED
Audra F. Saunders, West Des Moines, attorney for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.
Nancy L. Pietz of Pietz Law Office, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Langholz, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.
1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights as to E.S., born in 2015, and O.H., born in 2021.1 On appeal, she argues that termination is not in the children’s best interests and that a permissive exception applies. Upon our review, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The family came to the attention of Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services in December 2024 after O.H. was found walking outside unsupervised, wearing only pajamas with no shoes or coat. There was dried vomit on the pajamas, and O.H. had a fever of 103 degrees. When the police arrived, they were unable to locate or contact the mother. The mother later went to the police station and claimed that she had been working an overnight shift and that a family member was supposed to be supervising O.H.2 O.H. was drug tested, which showed a positive result for methamphetamine and amphetamine. The mother was charged with child endangerment, and a nocontact order was entered against her as to O.H.3
The children were removed from the mother’s custody and
adjudicated children in need of assistance under Iowa Code
section 232.96A(2) and (3)(b) (2025). Since removal, the mother has
1
The children do not share the same father. The parental rights of O.H.’s father were also terminated in this action, but he does not appeal. However, E.S.’s father maintains custody of E.S.
2
The police knew this was untrue, as they had contacted the family member before the mother arrived at the police station, and the family member said they were unaware O.H. was alone.
3
E.S. was with a relative at the time of the incident.
2
continued to struggle with substance-use and mental-health issues. Thus, the State petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights.
The termination hearing was held in May 2026. While the mother
attended the hearing, she was incarcerated at the time for violating probation. At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court stated on the record that it was terminating the mother’s parental rights. In its written order, the juvenile court granted the State’s petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f ) (2026). The mother now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Termination proceedings are reviewed de novo.” In re L.B., 970
N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022). “We give weight to the factual findings but are not bound by them.” Id.
“We generally apply a three-step analysis to review termination of
parental rights. First, we consider whether there are statutory grounds for termination. Second, we determine whether termination is in the best interest of the child. Third, we consider whether we should exercise any of the permissive exceptions for termination.” Id. (internal citations omitted). However, we do not address a step if it is not raised by a parent. In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 532 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc).
DISCUSSION
The mother argues that termination is not in the children’s best
interests and that a permissive exception should be applied to avoid termination. We address each argument in turn.4
4
On appeal, the mother does not contest whether the State proved the statutory grounds for termination. Thus, we do not discuss this step. See L.A., 20 N.W.3d at 532.
3
I. Best Interests
The mother first asserts that termination is not in the children’s best interests. Under the best-interests analysis, we “shall 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). “This consideration may include ‘[w]hether the parent’s ability to provide the needs of the child[ren are] affected by the parent’s mental capacity or mental condition’ and the child[ren’s] integration into a preadoptive home.” In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020) (first alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(a), (b)).
The mother argues termination of her parental rights is not in the
children’s best interests and that she should be granted a six-month extension. The mother contends that maintaining the relationship between her and the children does not jeopardize the children’s safety and that insufficient evidence shows termination of her parental rights is in the children’s best interests. While we consider the parent-child bond in our best interest analysis, it is only one factor. See L.A., 20 N.W.3d at 535 (holding that the bond between a parent and child should be considered in the bestinterests analysis); In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (holding that the parent-child bond “is not an overriding consideration, but merely a factor to consider”).
Despite the mother’s argument, there are serious concerns about the
children’s safety. This case began after child endangerment charges were filed against the mother. Furthermore, concerns about the mother’s
substance use remain. The mother points out that before the termination hearing she successfully completed intensive outpatient treatment.
4
However, over the course of the case, the mother tested positive for controlled substances when she complied with drug testing. At other times, the mother has denied substance use altogether. Moreover, the record shows that when the mother was arrested one month before the termination hearing for violating probation, she admitted that she would test positive for methamphetamine. Concerns about the mother’s mental health also remain.
The record shows that the children are doing well in their current
placements. Coupled with the continued concerns about the children’s safety due to the mother’s substance use and mental health, we conclude that termination is in the children’s best interests. While we acknowledge that a bond exists between the mother and the children, “[i]t is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010).
We turn then to the mother’s extension argument.5 To grant a sixmonth extension, Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) “requires the court to make a determination 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). Based
5
In its response, the State argues the mother waived the issue of whether a sixmonth extension should be granted. The State contends the mother only made cursory and conclusory references to the issue without presenting the issue under a separate issue heading and without explaining how the facts of this case apply to legal authority. See Soo R.R. Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 691 (Iowa 1994) (“[R]andom mention of [an] issue, without elaboration or supportive authority, is insufficient to raise the issue for our consideration.”). We agree that the mother’s mention of the issue in her petition is terse. However, because of the expeditated nature of the appeal, the significance of the right at issue, and the fact the mother requested an extension at the termination hearing, we exercise our discretion and consider the merits.
5
on our de novo review of the record, and for the reasons explained above, we cannot conclude that the need for removal would no longer exist at the end of a six-month extension.
II. Permissive Exception
The mother also argues that a permissive exception under Iowa Code
section 232.116(3) should be applied to preserve her parental rights. Once the State has proven a ground for termination, the burden shifts to the parent to prove an exception to termination. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018).
The mother again points to the bond between her and the children in
arguing the court should not terminate her parental rights. Under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c), the court need not terminate parental rights if “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” “[O]ur consideration must center on whether the child[ren] will be
disadvantaged by termination, and whether the disadvantage overcomes [the mother’s] inability to provide for [the children’s] developing needs.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010). While the mother clearly loves her children, the evidence does not show that termination would be detrimental to the children solely because of the parent-child bond. Thus, the mother has not met her burden of showing a permissive exception applies.
CONCLUSION
Because we find that termination is in the children’s best interests and the mother did not prove a permissive exception applies, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
6