In the Interest of R.W., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 26-0131
Filed June 24, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of R.W., Minor Child,
T.W., Father,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Colin McCormack of Van Cleaf & McCormack Law Firm, LLP, Des
Moines, attorney for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Alexandra Maria Nelissen of Advocate Law PLLC, Clive, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Bower, S.J.
Opinion by Buller, J.

1
BULLER, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing only
that the juvenile court should have granted him additional time for
reunification with the child. We review de novo. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100,
110 (Iowa 2014).

In March 2024, the child (born in 2022) was removed from the
mother’s care and placed with the maternal grandmother. The father was
incarcerated following parole violations at that time. After his release a
couple months later, he began making progress on case expectations.

In March 2025, the juvenile court granted the parents a six-month
extension for reunification. The court’s order outlined its expectations of the
father for reunification to occur:
d. [The father] will demonstrate his ability to maintain a sober lifestyle by
engaging in recommended treatment, abstaining from the use of alcohol,
providing negative screens at [the department of health and human
services (HHS)] discretion, building a healthy, sober support system, and
developing a detailed, written relapse prevention plan.

e. [The father] will address his history of domestic violence by engaging in
domestic violence specific services and engaging in individual therapy.

f. [The father] will demonstrate the ability to safely parent [his] child by
engaging in interactions at HHS discretion, participating in [his] child’s
medical, mental, dental health services as recommended. The [father] will
learn how to co-parent safely.

g. [The father] will show stability in all areas of his life by maintaining
stable housing and demonstrating the ability to meet his and [the child]’s
financial needs.

In May 2025, both parents severely regressed. The mother admitted
to sobriety struggles with drugs and alcohol and said the father domestically
abused her. The father skipped a scheduled court hearing claiming he was

2
going to Florida—though his explanation of why he was going and the timing
of the travel evolved over time. He admitted he knew about the mother’s
alcohol-abuse relapse, but he chose not to report it in case it affected his
visits. By June, he was blaming all setbacks (and the juvenile court’s
involvement) on the mother, yet the father had “regressed as he has refused
visits, no longer has a job, and is not doing what is asked of him for
reunification purposes.”

A petition for the termination of both parents’ rights was filed, with a
termination trial in September. The mother died in late 2025, after trial but
before the court ruled, and the juvenile court accordingly dismissed the
petition to terminate the mother’s rights and struck her testimony from the
record. The court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) (2025). The father appeals.

In his petition on appeal, the father challenges the court finding
child-welfare concerns relating to domestic violence and ongoing substance
abuse. Without those two factors, he urges he would have had housing in
place and been able to resume care of the child with “a minor extension of
time.” We interpret this argument as only challenging the court’s denial of a
six-month extension.

At trial, the father admitted, “I didn’t do the things that was asked of
me.” He admitted to long-term methamphetamine use, with a five-year
period of sobriety when raising his older children. He claimed sobriety from
methamphetamine since getting out of prison in 2024, but he admitted to
relatively constant marijuana use—including the day before the termination
trial. He stopped complying with drug testing about five months before the
termination trial. And while the father started substance-abuse treatment, he
was “kicked out” after he missed some classes, and then “faded away” from

3
community-based options. He started counseling in May but soon stopped
due to cost and did not locate any other therapist after that.

The father protested any accusations of domestic violence against the
child’s mother, only admitting a single occurrence of “push[ing] her in the
snow.” But he admitted struggling with anger issues. In December of 2022,
the mother had reported the father assaulted her, and a police officer
observed “she had bruises all over her face and legs.” The father pled guilty
to assault, and a no-contact order was entered to protect the mother from the
father. Then, in May 2025, the mother reported to the court and then police
that the father had assaulted her again. He did not complete any domestic
violence programming.

“Once the limitation period lapses, termination proceedings must be
viewed with a sense of urgency.” In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518, 523–24
(Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). So, to grant a six-month extension, the
juvenile court must “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected
behavioral changes” that lead it to determine the child will no longer need to
be removed from the parent’s home. Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). Here, the
limitation period was six months. See id. § 232.116(1)(h)(1).

In its March 2025 order granting additional time—which was already
one year out from removal—the juvenile court laid out precisely what
conditions and changes were expected of the father. Unfortunately, the father
did not make sustained progress on any of the requirements. He was required
to engage in substance-abuse treatment, participate in domestic abuse
programming and therapy, participate in the child’s life and health services,
and maintain a safe home and employment. While he made passing attempts
at each goal, he was largely unsuccessful at sustained progress in every area
other than visits with the child.

4
While we agree with the father that “the code does not require
perfection,” he falls short of even lower standards. Against the statutory
requirements for six-month extension, we affirm the juvenile court’s ruling
denying additional time.

AFFIRMED.

5