In the Interest of A.H., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2017
Filed February 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of A.H., Minor Child,
A.B., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County,
The Honorable Adam D. Sauer, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Jane M. Wright, Forest City, attorney for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Michael J. Moeller of Laird Law Firm, P.L.C., Clear Lake, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
Opinion by Schumacher, J.

1
SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her
daughter, A.H., born in 2023.1 She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the grounds for termination, claims termination is not in the
child’s best interests, and argues a permissive exception to termination
applies. Upon our review,2 we affirm.

I. Grounds for termination

The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2025). The mother does not dispute the first
three elements of that statutory ground—the child is three years of age or
younger, the child has been adjudicated in need of assistance, and the child
has been removed from her custody for at least six months. Rather, she
focuses on the fourth element—whether the child could be safely returned
to her custody at the time of the termination hearing. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(h)(4).

The child was removed in September 2024, 3 after the mother was
found “passed out” in a gas station parking lot at 3:00 a.m. The child was in
the backseat. After being woken up by staff, the mother left the parking lot
and was then stopped by police on a nearby highway. Police allowed the
mother’s sister to pick them up. The sister reported the mother was “high”

1
The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
2
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. See In re L.B., 970
N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022).
The mother has had prior involvement with the Iowa Department of Health and
3

Human Services, and her parental rights to five other children have been terminated.

2
and the family had “tried to force her to get help.” The child’s hair tested
positive for “a significantly high level” of methamphetamine.

Since then, the mother has denied any type of substance use,4 despite
being on probation for a drug-related charge. She stated she did not know
why the child would test positive for methamphetamine but surmised maybe
another person had used methamphetamine around the child. At the
termination hearing, she testified she did not attend drug tests because she
didn’t want her “hair cut” or she was “busy with walking a dog or on a job.”
Specifically relating to the test she missed a week before the termination
hearing, she stated she had just moved and she “wasn’t able to lock the place
up.” At the termination hearing, the mother agreed she had not taken any
drug tests for the department during the life of this case, but she testified that
if she was given more time, she would “try” to complete them.

Aside from her failure to show sobriety, the mother did not complete
other case plan requirements. The mother inconsistently attended sessions
with her family-centered services (FCS) provider (she attended only
nineteen of seventy-two sessions); she did not participate in family treatment
court as recommended (but she stated she “still would like to do it and
complete it”); and she usually ended visits with the child early (the provider
estimated about sixty percent of the visits were ended early). Visits never
progressed beyond fully supervised. In short, the provider reported the
mother’s compliance with services had been “little to none.” As the guardian
ad litem opined, “This child does need permanency and this case has been
opened for quite a while, over a year and I believe there just hasn’t been any
progress shown . . . .” Upon our review, we conclude the State offered clear

4
She testified she completed two or three substance-use evaluations, during which
she stated she had used marijuana but not since in high school.

3
and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the mother’s
custody.

II. Best Interests

The mother also claims termination is not in the child’s best interests.
In assessing A.H.’s best interests, we give primary weight “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.” Id. § 232.116(2). We also consider what care A.H. would
receive if returned to her mother. In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020)
(citation omitted). “To determine this, we look to the [mother’s] past
performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable
of providing in the future.” In re C.C., No. 25-1073, 2025 WL 2658412, at *4
(Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2025) (cleaned up).

We acknowledge the mother’s belief that A.H. will “be forever hurt,
messed up mentally” if her parental rights are terminated, but we weigh it
against the caseworker’s opinion that A.H. needs safety, permanency, and
stability that the mother has not shown she could provide:
We have a child that has her own specific needs. She needs very
consistent structure and stability. She needs a lot of assistance with
maintaining her day-to-day. Whether it be trying to get her caught up on
her own speech and development, but just, you know, that basic stability.
And . . . we’re a year in, we have not even maintained the visits, the
interactions that could have occurred, but we’re ending interactions early,
we’re canceling interactions, we’re not confirming interactions, we’re
confirming child’s being brought to interactions, only to have parents not
show for those, interactions are ending early, that is not something that
[A.H.] can survive in. Plus, we have instability with housing, we have very
inconsistency with the relationship—relationship between parents,
relationships with other people, they don’t have the core skills needed to
parent her on a full-time basis let alone because we have no drug testing,

4
we have no baseline of parents’ sobriety in well over a year and that is not
safe for a child of [A.H.]’s age.

Termination is in A.H.’s best interests.

III. Permissive exceptions to termination

The mother points to the exception to termination under
section 232.116(3)(c), claiming “[t]he child has a demonstrated bond to her
. . . and a termination would be detrimental to the child due to the closeness
of their parent-child relationship.” To avoid termination under this
exception, “[t]he law requires clear and convincing evidence that
ʻtermination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the
closeness of the parent-child relationship.’” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169
(Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)).

The FCS provider acknowledged “there is a connection and there is a
bond” between the mother and A.H. and the child “is excited” when she
sees the mother. But the provider reported “[j]ust within the last two weeks,
there were two out of five visits that were attended.” She opined the mother’s
“lack of consistency” showed the mother had not put the child “in a place
of importance” in her life. The caseworker testified similarly. Under these
circumstances, the mother has not established termination of her rights will
be detrimental to the child.

5
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.5

AFFIRMED.

5
The mother also states that she “contested” the removal hearing and child-in-
need-of-assistance adjudication, and she “maintained her position on this throughout the
life of these cases.” Even if we were able to construe a claim from these statements, any
challenges to those prior orders are moot. See generally In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867, 871
(Iowa 1994) (observing we “cannot go back in time” and review “alleged errors” in orders
after the time to appeal those orders has passed).

6