In the Interest of C.F. and P.F., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1809
Filed May 27, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of C.F. and P.F., Minor Children,
A.F., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County,
The Honorable Erica Crisp, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Donna M. Schauer of Schauer Law Office, Panora, attorney for appellant
mother.

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

Chira Corwin of Corwin Law Firm, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor children.
_______________

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

1
SANDY, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her
children, C.F. and P.F. On appeal, the mother challenges the statutory
grounds for termination, argues that termination is not in the children’s best
interests, and that two permissive exceptions to termination should have been
applied. Upon our review we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental
rights.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
C.F. was born in May 2013, and P.F. was born in February 2022. A.F.
is the biological mother of both children. C.F.’s biological father is deceased,
and P.F.’s biological father’s initials are also A.F.1 The children were initially
brought to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) when A.F., an older brother of C.F. and P.F. who is not
involved in this appeal, went to the emergency department and admitted to
taking THC. The mother admitted that she gave the THC to A.F. and that
she had taken it as well. This prompted HHS to conduct a home
investigation, and HHS determined the home to be physically unsafe for the
younger children. HHS also drug tested all the children in the home, and A.F.
and P.F. both tested positive for THC.

The children were removed from the home on April 24, 2024. After a
petition was filed, the juvenile court adjudicated C.F. and P.F. to be children
in need of assistance (CINA) on November 13. The children remained in out-
of-home placement from the time of their initial removal until the
termination trial. C.F. and P.F. were initially placed with their adult sibling

1
The father consented to the termination of his parental rights and does not
appeal.

2
but were quickly moved at the request of the same adult sibling. He stated
that he could not provide care for his own biological children and his two
younger siblings. C.F. and P.F. were then moved to separate familial relative
placements.

After removal, the mother made a credible threat to kill the prior-
assigned judge, the child protective services worker, and the mother’s adult
son who initially took in the children. She was convicted of threats of
terrorism and tampering with a witness. At the time of termination, the
mother was on probation for those offenses. The mother was offered multiple
services throughout the case. These included Family Centered Servies,
supervised visits, substance-use evaluations and treatment, mental-health
treatment, parenting classes, and a psychological evaluation. 2 The mother
engaged with some, but not all, of the services required by HHS. The mother
spent several months in jail leading up to the termination trial due to pre-trial
release violations, causing several services from this case to be suspended.

At the beginning of this case, P.F. required speech therapy, physical
therapy, and occupational therapy. She ultimately needed and received
surgery for ear tubes to be placed. This procedure was delayed due to the
mother’s initial refusal to consent, but she changed her mind after receiving
a second opinion. P.F. was eventually diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome,
but the mother denied drinking during her pregnancy. C.F. had a history of
struggling to gain weight, as well as gastrointestinal and bowel issues. He was
also testing two years behind his classmates in school. After his most recent
visit with the mother, his therapist recommended that the visits should be
discontinued as they were “traumatizing.” The HHS case worker testified

2
The court approved funding for therapy when it was not covered by the mother’s
insurance.

3
that C.F. began acting inappropriately at daycare after visits with his mother.
The juvenile court suspended visits at the request of C.F.’s guardian ad litem.

At previous hearings leading up to the eventual termination trial, the
older children in the family read letters they had written to the court,
documenting their childhood from their own perspectives. The older
children testified that they had been the primary caregivers for the younger
children at times, and that their utilities and plumbing were sometimes shut
off for months. They also testified that they would sometimes skip meals to
ensure their younger children had enough to eat. The older siblings also
reported that the mother was physically abusive. The mother denies these
claims.

Although there was some improvement throughout the case, HHS still
had concerns about the suitability of mother’s home for the children at the
time of termination. The mother completed a psychosocial evaluation. The
evaluator noted that the mother had persistent paranoia, and there was
significant concern with the mother’s access to weapons. The evaluation also
described the mother as impulsive, erratic, angry, depressed, and potentially
dangerous. The mother was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder
and borderline personality disorder. The mother disagrees with these
diagnoses. The evaluator explained that the family was “very much living on
the edge,” with inconsistent access to power, water, plumbing, and food.

On October 15, 2025, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s
parental rights to C.F. and P.F., and the father’s parental rights to P.F. The
mother now appeals.

4
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.

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).

I. Statutory Ground

“When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we
find supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012).
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to C.F. under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (f ), and (i) (2025). The court terminated
the mother’s parental rights to P.F. under section 232.116(1)(d), (h), and (i).

The mother failed to challenge termination under section 232.116(1)(i)
in her brief, which constitutes a waiver of any claims of error related to that
ground. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 870 (Iowa 1996) (“[O]ur
review is confined to those propositions relied upon by the appellant for
reversal on appeal.”); see In re H.L., No. 17-0357, 2017 WL 1536018, at *3
(Iowa Ct. App. May 3, 2017); Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (“Failure to cite
authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”). We

5
therefore affirm the juvenile court’s determination that the grounds for
termination were met under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(i).

II. Best Interests

The mother argues termination of her parental rights is not in the
children’s best interests. She asserts that she had done what was required of
her by HHS and showed that she was no longer suffering from “any mental
impediment” at the time of termination.

Iowa Code section 232.116(2) provides, when deciding “whether to
terminate the rights of a parent under this section, the court shall give
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.” See also
P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 37.

The mother has demonstrated erratic and dangerous behavior, making
credible threats to a judicial official, an HHS employee, and even her own
adult child. The psychosocial evaluation confirms that she is potentially
dangerous and abusive, with a lack of regard for the safety and well-being of
C.F. and P.F. Additionally, there are legitimate concerns of neglect, food
insecurity, and lack of heating, plumbing and other utilities in the household.
All of these threaten the children’s safety, long-term growth, and physical,
mental, and emotional health. The children are reportedly doing well in their
familial placements and are receiving needed care. P.F. is in speech therapy
and C.F. is working with a tutor to try and catch up in school. It is true the
mother has engaged with some services offered by HHS. But as the juvenile
court articulated in its apt best interest analysis, the children’s best interests
are served by keeping them with their placements. Termination of the
mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

6
III. Permissive exception

“Once we have established that the termination of parental rights is in
the children’s best interests, the last step of our analysis is to determine
whether any exceptions in section 232.116(3) apply to preclude the
termination.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa 2016). The mother
asserts that two exceptions to termination under section 232.116(3) apply:
“(a) [a] relative has legal custody of the child[ren]; . . . [and] (c) [t]here is clear
and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the
child[ren] at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.”

True enough, C.F. and P.F. have been placed with familial relatives.
But as our supreme court has expressed, “[a]n appropriate determination to
terminate a parent-child relationship is not to be countermanded by the
ability and willingness of a family relative to take the child. The child’s best
interests always remain the first consideration.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467,
475 (Iowa 2018). It is not in the best interests of the children to return to the
care of their mother. As discussed in the previous section, our concerns about
the children’s safety and wellbeing would not be alleviated by permitting the
mother to retain her parental rights. And section 232.116(3)(a) does not apply
when the children are in the legal custody of HHS and merely placed with a
relative. See, e.g., In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 170 (Iowa 2021). We decline to
apply the permissive exception set out in section 232.116(3)(a).

Finally, the mother argues that her “visits went fantastic with C.F. and
P.F.,” indicating that termination would be detrimental to the children due to
their closeness with the mother. The record shows the opposite. The
mother’s visits with C.F. were discontinued on his therapist’s
recommendation, describing the final visits as “traumatic” for C.F. Further,
the record does not indicate that termination would be detrimental to P.F.

7
She is receiving necessary medical care in her placement that she was not
previously receiving. We decline to apply the permissive exception set out in
section 232.116(3)(c). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

8