In the Interest of N.C., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 26-0477
Filed May 13, 2026
_______________

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

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County,
The Honorable William Owens, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Sarah Wenke, Ottumwa, attorney for appellant mother.

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

Sam K. Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.

1
BULLER, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child born
in 2024. After considering the mother’s arguments, we affirm.

The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) in early 2024 with concerns the mother used
cocaine while pregnant with the child. Confirming that, the child’s umbilical
cord tested positive for cocaine at birth. The parents began voluntary services
and agreed to a series of safety plans, resulting in the child residing primarily
with the maternal grandmother, with brief periods in the mother’s care. The
mother lived with the grandmother and the child off and on through 2024;
she parented the child when she was in the home.

Following the mother’s November 2024 relapse on cocaine, alcohol,
and marijuana, the child was removed from the parents’ custody and
adjudicated a child in need of assistance in early 2025. The mother moved
out of the grandmother’s home and again relapsed. After that, she only
visited the child eleven times over the rest of the year. Although twice-weekly
visits were set up, she canceled them for a variety of reasons, including a job
interview, illness, relapse, or wanting her mother to supervise instead of the
HHS provider.

Although she initially cooperated with services, as time passed, the
mother’s participation became “very spotty”; she was “very willing” but
unable to follow through and progress. She successfully completed inpatient
substance-abuse treatment in September 2024, but she “then failed to
continue engagement with outpatient” treatment and relapsed. Her
participation became “very much on and off again,” cycling in and out of
assorted treatment programs, but she did not sustain sobriety for a significant
period. And the same pattern applies to her participation in mental-health

2
services and mental-health medication management: she missed multiple
months of appointments and did not take her prescribed medications
consistently.

A termination trial was held in December 2025. The mother did not
appear at trial. The county attorney, HHS, and the guardian ad litem all
recommended termination of parental rights. The juvenile court terminated
the parents’ rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2025).
The mother appeals; the father does not. We review de novo. See In re W.M.,
957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).

On appeal, the mother does not contest the grounds for termination,
but she claims the juvenile court should have applied a statutory exception to
decline termination of her parental rights. She makes a passing reference that
the district court should have given her more time to work toward
reunification as she maintains doing so would not affect the child’s placement
with the grandmother. Finally, the mother urges the juvenile court should
have placed the child into a guardianship with the maternal grandmother.

We are skeptical the mother preserved error on her permissive-bond-
exception claim. But, assuming without deciding we can reach it, the burden
of proving an exception rests on the parent resisting termination. In re W.T.,
967 N.W.2d 315, 322 (Iowa 2021). The mother urges she established a bond
with the child during visits and loves the child, so termination of her rights
would be detrimental to the child. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). But one of
the grounds for termination the mother did not contest required the juvenile
court find “clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not
maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the
previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to
resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.” Id.

3
§ 232.116(1)(e)(3). This finding all but necessarily defeats the mother’s
invocation of the bond exception. On this record, the mother has not met her
burden to establish that, after a year of little contact and considering the
child’s tender age, severing her bond with the child causes a detriment
outweighing termination. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010).
The juvenile court correctly declined to apply this exception to termination.

As to her request for additional time, to the extent any argument is
adequately briefed, we agree with the juvenile court there is no basis for
granting additional time. An extension requires identifiable factors,
conditions, and behavioral changes that will allow a parent to resume custody
within six months. Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). After nearly two years of little
sustained progress as to her mental health or substance abuse, and
considering the sparse contact between mother and child, we find an
extension is not warranted.

The mother also asserts the juvenile court should not have terminated
her rights because the court could have placed the child in a guardianship
with the grandmother. But there was no evidence the grandmother was open
to a guardianship, nor a recommendation from any other party familiar with
the case. “Importantly, a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative
to termination.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2018) (cleaned up).
The juvenile court considered the possibility of a guardianship but found that
“given the age of the child, the length of time the child has been removed,
the lack of progress toward reunification, and the availability of other viable
permanency options it is clear guardianship would not be appropriate.” We
agree, and we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

4