In the Interest of L.K., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 26-0554
Filed May 27, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of L.K., Minor Child,
E.K., Mother,
Appellant,
I.K., Father,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County,
The Honorable Paul G. Crawford, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Norma J. Meade of Moore, McKibben, Goodman & Lorenz, LLP,
Marshalltown, attorney for appellant mother.

Jennie Wilson-Moore of Wilson Law Firm, Conrad,
attorney for appellant father.

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

Mary Cowdrey, Assistant Public Defender, Marshalltown, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

1
Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.

2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their child. Neither parent contests the grounds for termination.
Instead, they contend that the child’s best interest is served by setting up a
guardianship for the child and preserving their parental rights. Because clear
and convincing evidence shows that termination rather than a long-term
guardianship serves the child’s best interest, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
L.K. was born in November 2021. The family came to the attention of
the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in October 2024
when law enforcement executed a search warrant on the family’s apartment.
One officer noted that the child “was not wearing a diaper” and fought off
the mother’s attempts to put one on her by “constantly kicking.” He added
that the mother “seemed to be struggling to control” the child, who was
“very high energy” and “wanted to run all over the apartment.”

There were clear risks of harm to the child in the home. Both parents
admitted using methamphetamine, and the child tested positive for it. The
father used methamphetamine intravenously, and officers saw capped and
uncapped needles lying on the floor of the bedroom that the child shared with
the parents. In the living room, officers discovered a loaded handgun inside
a purse, and they found a large water bong and an empty gun magazine on a
shelf. One of the people staying at the apartment was a registered sex
offender. A child abuse assessment concluded that five allegations of abuse
were founded against both parents.1

1
A child abuse assessment alleged (1) denial of critical care based on failure to
provide adequate shelter, (2) denial of critical care based on failure to provide proper

3
The juvenile court removed the child from the parents’ custody and
adjudicated her a child in need of assistance (CINA). HHS placed the child
with a paternal aunt, where she stayed throughout the CINA proceedings.
The child’s maternal grandmother, who lives in Georgia, contacted HHS and
asked to be considered for placement and adoption.

HHS offered services to address concerns about the parents’
substance use, mental health, housing instability, and parenting skills, but the
concerns persisted after removal. When there was no notable progress six
months later, the State petitioned to terminate the mother’s and father’s
parental rights.

In a report filed before the July 2025 termination hearing, the guardian
ad litem (GAL) noted that unlike the parents, the child had “improved leaps
and bounds since [the court] became involved in her life.” First, the GAL
noted that the child was still drinking from a bottle at the time of removal and
“had to learn to eat, basically.” After transitioning to solid foods, the child
went from “overweight” to a “normal” weight for her height. The child’s
hair also improved from “matted” at removal to “neatly combed.” The GAL
also noted there were concerns about speech delays at the time of the removal
as the child used “mostly monosyllable or two-word answers.” After
educational intervention, the child “was using five and sometimes six syllable
responses and questions.” Finally, the child was “hyper” and had difficulty
sleeping after removal but began sleeping well after adopting a bedtime
routine.

supervision, (3) presence of illegal drugs, (4) allowing access to a registered sex offender,
and (5) dangerous substances.

4
After the mother moved to reopen the evidence in October, a second
hearing was held in December. In March 2026, the juvenile court granted
the State’s petition and terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2025).

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re
L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 532 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). While not binding on us, we
give weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings, especially those assessing
witness credibility. In re R.M.-V., 13 N.W.3d 620, 624 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024).

DISCUSSION
The mother and father make the same argument on appeal. They do
not dispute that the State met its burden of proving the elements for
termination under section 232.116(1)(h) by clear and convincing evidence.
Instead, they claim that the court should have placed the child in a
guardianship with the maternal grandmother in Georgia and exercised its
discretion to preserve the parent-child relationship under
section 232.116(3)(a).2

If the State proves the grounds alleged in the termination petition by
clear and convincing evidence, the juvenile court may order termination of
parental rights. Iowa Code § 232.117(3). Or the court may opt instead to
adjudicate the child to be a CINA and “[t]ransfer guardianship and custody
of the child to an adult relative.” See id. §§ 232.104(2)(d)(2), .117(5). The

2
Under section 232.116(3)(a), “[t]he court need not terminate the relationship
between the parent and child if . . . [a] relative has legal custody of the child.” Although
the child was placed with the paternal aunt, HHS had legal custody. See In re A.B., 956
N.W.2d 162, 170 (Iowa 2021).

5
latter option is available only if the court finds convincing evidence that
shows termination is not in the child’s best interest, services were offered to
correct the need for removal, and the child cannot be returned to the home.
Id. § 232.104(2)(d), (4). Neither parent contests that the State proved
services were offered to correct the need for removal and the child cannot be
returned home, which are elements of section 232.116(1)(h). The question
is whether clear and convincing evidence shows that termination is in the
child’s best interest.

We agree with the juvenile court that the child’s best interest is served
by terminating the mother’s and father’s parental rights rather than setting
up a guardianship. “[A] guardianship is not legally preferred to termination.”
L.A., 20 N.W.3d at 533. Because guardianships can end, see Iowa Code
§ 633.675, a guardianship leaves the child’s future placement in limbo, In re
B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 34–35 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). The child is young, so any
guardianship would need to continue for more than a decade. See L.A., 20
N.W.3d at 533; see also In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 478 (Iowa 2018)
(distinguishing cases in which older children desire to maintain the parent-
child relationship from those involving children who are too young to express
a preference).

One year after the child’s removal, the parents had not shown their
commitment to making the changes needed to regain custody of the child.
Meanwhile, the child has thrived in the care of the paternal aunt, who is
willing to make a long-term commitment to the child. Even the maternal
grandmother, who the parents want the court to appoint as guardian for the
child, preferred adoption over a guardianship. She testified that a
guardianship would be unfair to the child as adoption would give the child
more stability.

6
Depriving the child of the permanency afforded by adoption to
preserve the parent-child relationship in name only weighs against the child’s
best interest. See In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (noting that a
child’s need for a permanent home is one of the defining elements in
determining a child’s best interest); In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa
1987) (“Child custody should be quickly fixed and little disturbed. Children
should not be made to suffer indefinitely in parentless limbo.” (internal
citation omitted)). Because termination is in the child’s best interest, we
affirm.

AFFIRMED.

7