In the Interest of S.H. and J.I., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1927
Filed June 24, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of S.H. and J.I., Minor Children,
J.W, Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Deborah L. Johnson of Deborah L. Johnson Law Office, P.C., Altoona,
attorney for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.

1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

J.W. appeals the order terminating her parental rights to two children:
S.H., born in 2014, and J.I., born in 2017. She does not contest that the State
proved the grounds for termination. Instead, she contends that termination
is contrary to the children’s best interests and asks for more time to work
toward reunification. Because the record shows that termination serves the
children’s best interests, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
This is the second termination-of-parental-rights case involving the
children. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of their biological
parents in 2017 due to abandonment and chronic substance use. The
evidence at the time showed that J.W., the children’s maternal grandmother,
was best suited to furthering the children’s long-term nurturing and growth
based on their physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs. J.W.
assumed the children’s care and adopted them.

Unfortunately, adoption by J.W. did not bring the children a happy
ending. Between 2019 and 2024, the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) investigated multiple allegations of child abuse because J.W.
left the children in the care of one of the biological parents. During an
August 2024 investigation into an allegation that J.W. left the children with
the biological mother, who was using methamphetamine, HHS learned that
J.W. had not lived with the children since November 2023 due to her own
methamphetamine use.

2
The State petitioned to adjudicate the children in need of assistance
(CINA), and the juvenile court removed them from J.W.’s custody. 1 The
children were tested for drugs, and each showed a positive result for THC.
The mother had a substance-use evaluation and was diagnosed with
moderate cannabis use disorder (early remission) and severe
methamphetamine use disorder.

Despite being offered substance-use and mental-health treatment, J.W.
was unable to remain sober. One year after the CINA proceedings began, the
State petitioned to terminate J.W.’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(e), (f ), and (l) (2025). After a hearing, the juvenile court
granted the petition under section 232.116(1)(f ) and (l).

SCOPE AND STANDARD 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 courts use a three-step analysis to review the termination of
parental rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). The mother
only contests the second step: whether the best-interest framework laid out
in section 232.116(2) supports termination of parental rights. Id. She also
asks for more time to work toward reuniting with the children.

1
HHS placed the children in foster care with two siblings. At the time of the
termination hearing, both were in a psychiatric medical institute for children.

3
I. Does terminating J.W.’s parental rights serve the children’s best
interests?

J.W. first contends that terminating her parental rights is contrary to
the children’s best interests. We decide whether termination is in a child’s
best interest by “giv[ing] 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, 528 (Iowa 2019) (cleaned up).

Clear and convincing evidence shows that J.W. cannot provide a safe
and stable home for the children. She left the children to live with someone
whose parental rights were terminated years earlier because of safety
concerns. One year after the CINA proceedings began, J.W. had not made
meaningful progress in addressing her substance-use issues, which are at the
core of these concerns. J.W.’s actions before and during the CINA
proceedings have taken a clear toll on the children’s mental health.

Like the juvenile court, we find S.H.’s personal statement at the
termination hearing especially illuminating. As recounted by the juvenile
court, S.H.
indicated it was his desire to stay with [the foster mother] because she had
provided for his needs.[2] He stated that when he resided with [ J.W.], he
did not go to the dentist and his “safety needs” were not met. He went on

2
J.I. also wishes to be adopted by the foster mother, who also cares for two of the
children’s siblings. Unfortunately, the foster mother is unable to provide for J.I.’s needs
while caring for the other children. Although a concurrent plan home is needed for J.I.,
terminating J.W.’s parental rights serves his best interest.

4
to state he was hit, smacked, hit with a belt, and punched. He stated these
typical types of punishments when he got in trouble. He stated that he
endured verbal abuse, including being called “slurs,” called “fat,” “ugly,”
and “stupid” by [ J.W.] and other family members. Court notes it is well
documented that [S.H.] never calls [ J.W.] “mom” or his “mother” and
consistently refers to her by her first name only . . . . [S.H.] then retold
events where he felt unsafe with [ J.W.]. One day, they were driving in a
car, and she gave him a baggie of drugs and directed him to go give it to a
specific individual. When he gave the person a bag of drugs and they gave
him money which he gave to [ J.W.]. He told about a house [ J.W.] would
take him to . . . . She would have him sit on the couch while [ J.W.] went to
the back. [S.H.] stated the people that were coming and going from the
house were “unsafe.” [S.H.] tried to tell [ J.W.] that his biological mother
was not safe, but she would not listen. [S.H.] stated he has worked a lot on
his coping skills during the last year, which was evident by his ability to
remain present and calm throughout this trial. Court notes that much of
what [S.H.] stated during the hearing was same information he had
previously expressed to the Court and other professionals. [S.H.] felt the
need to state these experiences because of [ J.W.]’s continued denials of
such abuse. Court continues to find his statements to be more credible
than [ J.W.]’s denial of such abuse.

Both HHS and the guardian ad litem recommended terminating J.W.’s
parental rights. We agree that termination serves the children’s best
interests.

II. Should J.W. be granted more time to remedy the circumstances
that led to the CINA adjudication?

J.W. also contends that she should be granted more time to prove the
children can be safely returned to her custody. See Iowa Code § 232.117(5)
(permitting court to deny termination and enter a permanency order under
section 232.104); see also id. § 232.104(2)(b) (allowing the court to continue
a child’s placement for up to six months if the need for the child’s removal
from the home will no longer exist at the end of that period). To delay
permanency under section 232.104, the court must “enumerate the specific

5
factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis
for the determination that the need for removal of the child from the child’s
home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Id.
§ 232.104(2)(b).

The record does not allow us to make the necessary findings to delay
permanency for six months. Delaying permanency is also antithetical to the
children’s best interests. See In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021)
(stating that the court considers whether further delay is in the child’s best
interests in addition to whether the need for removal will no longer exist at
the end of the six-month period).

We affirm the termination of J.W.’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

6