In the Interest of B.A. and M.A., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0923
Filed August 6, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF B.A and M.A.,
Minor Children,

J.A., Father,
Appellant,

S.A., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County,

Gary P. Strausser, Judge.

Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Christopher J. Foster, Iowa City, for appellant father.

Esther J. Dean, Muscatine, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Mark J. Neary, Iowa City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and

Langholz, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two

children, born in 2008 and 2016. Both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the grounds for termination and request that a guardianship be

established as an alternative to termination.

We conduct a de novo review of termination-of-parental-rights orders. In re

A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Our review follows a three-step process

that involves determining whether a statutory ground for termination has been

established, whether termination is in the children’s best interests, and whether

any permissive exceptions should be applied to preclude termination. Id. at 294.

But if a parent does not challenge a step on appeal, then we do not address it.

See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

The court found grounds authorizing termination of the mother’s parental

rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), (g), and (l) (2025) and the father’s

parental rights under section 232.116(1)(e), (f), (g), and (l). We affirm if any ground

is supported by the record. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We

elect to focus on section 232.116(1)(f). Neither parent disputes the first three

elements of that section—the children are four years of age or older, have been

adjudicated in need of assistance, and have been removed from the physical

custody of the parents for the time specified in the applicable subparagraphs. Iowa

Code § 232.116(1)(f)(1)–(3). Instead, they focus on the fourth element—whether

the children could be safely returned to their custody at the time of the termination

hearing. Id. § 232.116(1)(f)(1)(4) (requiring a finding that “[t]here is clear and

convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s
3

parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time”); In re A.M., 843

N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (holding that “at the present time” means at the time

of the termination hearing). Following our review of the record, we concur with the

court that the children could not be safely returned to the parents’ custody at the

time of the termination hearing due to the parents’ longstanding and unaddressed

methamphetamine use.

This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services in January 2022, when the mother gave birth to twins testing

positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. The parents acknowledged

regular and longstanding use of methamphetamine, including days before the birth

of the twins. One of the twins passed away due to health complications. The other

twin, L.A., and the parents’ older children, B.A. and M.A. were adjudicated in need

of assistance. L.A. was removed from the parents’ custody at the time of release

from the hospital in May 2023. The parents’ rights to L.A. were terminated in

December 2024; this court affirmed their appeals. See In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529,

536 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025).

B.A. and M.A. were allowed to remain in their parents’ custody under

department supervision. They were removed in August 2023, however, because

the parents continued to miss and/or fail drug tests. B.A. also tested positive for

methamphetamine, but the parents maintained they did not know how she was

exposed.

The parents did not meaningfully participate in services. Visits never

progressed beyond fully supervised, for one hour each week. Eventually, the

father’s visits were stopped altogether because he failed to participate in any drug
4

tests. Although the mother attended a few drug tests, they were positive for

methamphetamine. Both parents exhibited signs of substance use. The father

attributed the sores on his body to poison ivy from mowing. In December 2024,

the State initiated termination-of-parental-rights proceedings for B.A. and M.A.

The termination hearing took place over two days in January and February

2025. On the first day, the parents were directed to take a drug test immediately

following the hearing. They failed to do so. The father, who was forty-six years

old, testified he first started using methamphetamine when he was fifteen. The

last drug test the father successfully completed was in October 2022. He testified

that he refused further tests because he didn’t “trust” the department “and their

cohorts.” But he stated he “just came up with this plan” to purchase drug tests on

his own; he was “just waiting for the tests to come in the mail” and then he would

“take a UA every day.” When asked what relief he requested from the court, he

responded, “I want the Court to see the games they [the caseworkers] play”; “Win

or lose, I have had enough.”

The mother testified she started using methamphetamine—with the

father—in “2016 or 2017.” She testified that she had “actually been re-enrolled

and started over” with substance-use treatment “about six or seven times” during

this case. She maintained her last date of use was in October 2023, but she took

a test in November of that year that was positive for methamphetamine.

Caseworkers acknowledged the mother was more involved during visits than the

father, but it was clear the parents were committed to their marriage and the mother

would not agree to attempt to parent without the father. Aside from these
5

significant concerns, the parents had not allowed the department “to view the[ir]

home to see if it is safe and suitable for visits or for [the] children.”

Department caseworkers opined the children could not be safely returned

to the custody of either parent “until [they] are able to assure sobriety.” As

caseworkers reported, the parents’ lack of “treatment was a really big factor in

keeping them from moving forward” and concerns about their substance use were

not “mitigated in any fashion”; “[i]t is hard to understand where the parents are at

in their sobriety, if they have any sobriety, because of their lack of participation in

our services.” Based on these and other facts replete in the record, we agree with

the court’s finding that Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) was satisfied.

Both parents also claim that rather than terminating their parental rights, the

court should have established a guardianship for both children with the maternal

grandparents. See Iowa Code § 232.117(5) (allowing the court, after a termination

hearing, to not order termination of parental rights but instead enter an order in

accordance with several sections, including section 232.104); see also id.

§ 232.104(2)(d)(2) (allowing the court to enter an order transferring guardianship

and custody of the children to an adult relative).

To establish a guardianship in lieu of termination, the court must determine

by clear and convincing evidence that “termination of the parent-child relationship

would not be in the best interest of the child.” Id. § 232.104(4)(a). However, a

guardianship does not provide the same level of stability and safety for children as

termination of parental rights and adoption because it is not permanent. In re A.C.,

No. 23-0567, 2023 WL 3612382, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 24, 2023) (“The

impermanent nature of guardianships denies children the security and stability that
6

a permanent home provides.”). Accordingly, “a guardianship is not a legally

preferable alternative to termination.” In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App.

2017).

On this issue, the guardian ad litem maintains:

A guardianship for these children, ages 16 and 8, whose parents
have ongoing significant substance abuse, employment, housing,
and mental health issues, is not appropriate. The children are
bonded to their younger biological sister, who resides in their home.
The children are bonded to their maternal grandparents, and have
resided in their home for more than 1 1/2 years. The children
deserve permanency.

The court explained its reasoning to find a guardianship “is not appropriate

in this case” as follows:

The [maternal grandparents], while relatives, have a strained
relationship with the parents. They have been unwilling to supervise
visits between the parents and children. Further, a guardianship is
not appropriate because one of the children has no desire to see her
parents and a guardianship would serve no purpose. The Court
cannot find there is a strong bond between [the children] and their
father due to the fact that he is not at any visits since visits were
suspended. While [the children] have some bond with their mother,
their bond is stronger now with the [maternal grandparents], and as
noted above, they enjoy residing in the same home as their sibling
. . . and are bonded to each other. The children need and deserve
permanency that termination of parental rights will provide.

We concur with the court’s conclusion that termination of the parents’ rights is the

most appropriate permanency option, and we affirm the court’s decision to

terminate their parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.