In the Interest of D.B.-C., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2100
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of D.B.-C., Minor Child,
R.B.-C., Father,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County,
The Honorable Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Luke C. Jenson of Jenson Law Firm, PLC, Waterloo, attorney for appellant
father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Kimberly S. Lange of Public Defenders Office, Waterloo, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Sandy, J.

1
SANDY, Judge.

A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights
to his child, D.B.-C. He argues that termination of his parental rights is not
in the child’s best interests and, in the alternative, that a permissive exception
to termination should apply. On our de novo review, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
D.B.-C. was born in 2023. The Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) became involved with the family in February 2024
after an allegation of maltreatment. HHS received information that a
registered sex offender was staying in the same apartment that the child was
living in. Additionally, while visiting the home, a child protective worker
found illegal substances. Both the mother and father were arrested, taken into
custody, and later released. D.B.-C. was adjudicated a child in need of
assistance (CINA) and was placed in family foster care.

At a dispositional hearing, the court adopted a permanency plan that
permitted both parents supervised visits. The parents were required to
participate in services offered by HHS, including substance-use evaluation
and treatment, drug testing, and other rehabilitative support.

The juvenile court found that the father “did not significantly
participate in the services offered by HHS.” At the permanency hearing on
February 24, 2025, the juvenile court ruled that the child would remain in
HHS’s custody for an additional six months to allow the father time to
comply with the permanency plan. The father was again required to
consistently engage in visitations with the child, participate in parenting
programs, utilize family centered services, and comply with random drug
testing.

2
The mother had similar requirements. Throughout the proceedings,
the mother was engaged in services provided by HHS, successfully
participated in random drug testing, completed the Safe Care program, and
complied with other HHS services required by the juvenile court. The child
was placed in the mother’s custody with supervision provided by HHS,
where she remains today.1

The father, however, failed to engage with most of the services and
programs required by the court. He only participated in visits with the child
sporadically and did not move on from supervised visits. The father also
missed multiple drug tests and failed every drug test he completed. He only
began to participate in the Safe Care program shortly before the termination
trial.

On November 24, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the
father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2025). The
juvenile court found that the statutory grounds for termination had been
established, termination was in the child’s best interest, and no permissive
exception should be applied. The father now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review termination of parental rights proceedings de novo.” In re
J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2020). “While we are not bound by the
juvenile court’s factual findings, we accord them weight, especially in
assessing witness credibility.” Id.

1
At the time of termination, the mother and father were no longer in a relationship
and were no longer living together.

3
DISCUSSION
We use a three-step process to determine whether (1) a statutory
ground has been established, (2) termination is in the child’s best interests,
and (3) any permissive exceptions to termination should be applied. In re
A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021). If a parent does not challenge a step,
we need not address it. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). The father
challenges only the juvenile court’s ruling as to steps two and three.

I. Best Interests.

The father argues that termination is not in the child’s best interests.
The father asserts that considerations made under Iowa Code
section 232.116(2) have little bearing on D.B.-C.’s situation because she has
been returned to the custody of the mother. Therefore, he maintains that
permanency is not relevant here and placement of the child with the mother
does not require the termination of the father’s parental rights.

We apply the best-interests framework under Iowa Code
section 232.116(2), giving “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.” We consider the child’s long-term and immediate interests. In re J.H.,
952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020). We must look at what the future may hold
for the child if they are to be returned to the parent’s care. Id. We do this by
reviewing a parent’s past performance, as it is a helpful predictor of the
quality of care the parent can provide in the future. See id.

After reviewing the record, we find that termination of the father’s
parental rights is in the child’s best interests. The record supports the
juvenile court’s findings, as the father failed every drug test he participated

4
in during the termination period and missed several other drug tests. He
refused outpatient treatment, had periods of unstable housing, and did not
begin the Safe Care program until a month and a half before the termination
trial. The father infrequently attended visits, which were fully supervised.
And although the frequency increased as the date of the termination trial
approached, he never progressed to unsupervised visits. He would often fall
asleep during the visits or would end the visits early. The HHS case worker
testified that the child could not be returned to the father and recommended
his parental rights be terminated.

Although the mother retains custody of the child, the father’s ongoing
inability to provide care means the termination of his rights should not “be
countermanded by the ability and willingness of a family relative to take the
child.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted).
Termination is in the child’s best interests.

II. Permissive Exception.

The father also asserts that a permissive exception applies under Iowa
Code section 232.116(3)(c). He argues that he has been present throughout
the child’s life, that he was making progress with the visits leading up to the
termination trial, and that he has provided for the child by giving monetary
gifts to D.B.-C.’s mother.

Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) provides that “[t]he court need not
terminate the relationship between the parent and child if the court
finds . . . [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.” Once the State has proven the grounds for termination, the
burden to prove that a permissive exception applies rests on the parent. A.S.,
906 N.W.2d at 475–76.

5
We have no doubt that the father loves his child, but a parent’s love for
their child is not enough to prevent termination. See In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010). Rather, we are concerned with “whether the
child will be disadvantaged by termination, and whether the disadvantage
overcomes” the parent’s inability to provide for the child’s needs. Id. The
father failed to show that termination would be detrimental to the child. The
child-parent-relationship assessment conducted by the Center for
Foundational & Relational Wellness described the child’s bond with the
father to be “insecure and anxious.” The HHS caseworker testified that the
child was afraid of the father during most of the visits, until the few visits just
before the termination trial when the child had “not appeared to be quite as
scared of [the father].” Although the father may have begun to make some
positive improvements in his relationship with the child, he presented no
evidence that termination would negatively impact her.

The juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights and
maintaining the child’s custody with the mother under protective
supervision is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

6