In the Interest of N.H., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0292
Filed June 18, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF N.H.,
Minor Child,

J.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

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

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Zachary C. Priebe of Jeff Carter Law Offices, PC, Des Moines, for appellant

father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Shannon Wallace, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz,

JJ.
2

TABOR, Chief Judge.

A father, James, appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental

rights to his son, N.H., born in 2023. He challenges the statutory grounds for

termination and contends that the juvenile court should have returned N.H. to his

custody or granted his request for a six-month extension to achieve reunification.

Alternatively, he claims that it would be in N.H.’s best interests to establish a

guardianship rather than terminating parental rights. After carefully considering

the record, we affirm the termination order.1

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

N.H. came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human

Services in February 2024 after being treated for a skull fracture at Blank

Children’s Hospital. He was nine months old at that time. The treating physician

reported to the department and police that the child’s injury was likely caused by

nonaccidental trauma. Department workers and police detectives determined that

N.H. was in his mother’s care when he was injured. They also discovered video

of the mother hitting, kicking, and grabbing the infant. The State charged the

mother with felony child endangerment.2 In late February, the juvenile court

ordered N.H.’s removal from parental custody. The department placed him with

his maternal aunt, where he has remained since. The court adjudicated N.H. as a

child in need of assistance (CINA) in April 2024.

1 Our review is de novo. In re M.H., 12 N.W.3d 159, 160 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024).
We examine the entire record, finding our own facts and adjudicating rights anew
on issues properly before us. Id. But we respect the juvenile court’s factual
findings, especially on credibility issues. Id.
2 The mother pleaded guilty but denied injuring N.H. when she testified at the

termination hearing. She is serving a seven-year prison sentence.
3

Paternity testing confirmed that James is N.H.’s father. The department

offered James weekly supervised visits with N.H. at the beginning of the CINA

case. He ended at least one visit early, cancelled several others, and did not bring

supplies for N.H. to the visits he attended. The department referred him to

SafeCare services, but he was discharged in May 2024 for noncompliance. The

department also asked him to provide drug screens in May and July 2024, but he

did not comply with those requests.3

Meanwhile, James was arrested for possession of methamphetamine in

June 2024. Then in July, he had an active arrest warrant for felony domestic abuse

assault.4 After learning of that warrant, the department suspended James’s visits

with N.H. The department could not locate James from July 2024 until his arrest

in October. James remained in jail until January 2025, when he pleaded guilty to

the domestic abuse assault and the court placed him on probation. After his

release from jail, he did not contact the department to request visits with N.H. until

a few days before the termination hearing. The department denied his request.5

The State petitioned to terminate parental rights. James and the mother

testified at the termination hearing. James explained that his relationship with the

mother ended while she was pregnant with N.H. When asked about his history of

substance use, he admitted that he started using marijuana during high school and

methamphetamine in 2018. According to his testimony, he “quit using daily” when

3 The department noted in its termination report to the court that those “missed

drug screens will be considered positive.”
4 The victim of that assault reported to police that James strangled her until she

lost consciousness.
5 James has not seen N.H. since July 2024.
4

N.H. was born but “relapsed and started using” again several times per day after

N.H.’s removal. He acknowledged that the department offered him resources for

a substance-use evaluation, but he neither had that evaluation nor participated in

substance-use treatment. He completed a mental-health evaluation and received

medication for depression, but he had not started recommended therapy. Nor had

he started the Iowa Domestic Abuse Program—a condition of his probation.

James also testified that he lived with his father’s ex-girlfriend in her trailer.

She paid for rent, utilities, and groceries. He did not have a job or transportation

of his own. But he said he planned to look for employment and save to regain his

driver’s license so that he could support himself. He believed it “could take up to

six months to a year” to obtain his license and housing. As his bottom line, James

asked the court to return N.H. to his custody or grant a six-month extension.

The department caseworker recommended termination, emphasizing that

James “hasn’t participated meaningfully in services or engaged meaningfully in

interactions with [N.H.].” The guardian ad litem (GAL) also supported termination.

She acknowledged that James was “trying” but urged that “he does not have things

in place right now where he could successfully take [N.H.] or support him.”

The juvenile court denied James’s request for an extension and terminated

N.H.’s legal relationship with both parents. Only James appeals.

II. Analysis

The juvenile court terminated James’s parental rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1), paragraphs (b), (d), (e), and (h) (2025). James disputes those

grounds for termination and asks for six more months to achieve reunification.

Alternatively, he claims that establishing a guardianship rather than terminating his
5

parental rights would better serve N.H.’s best interests. We will address each of

those claims in turn.

A. Statutory Ground for Termination

When the juvenile court relies on more than one statutory ground for

termination, we may affirm “on any ground . . . supported by the record.” In re A.B.,

815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We rest our decision on paragraph (h).

The juvenile court could terminate parental rights on that ground if the State

offered clear and convincing evidence of these elements:

(1) [N.H.] is three years of age or younger.
(2) [N.H.] has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) [N.H.] has been removed from the physical custody of [his]
parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the
last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been
less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that [N.H.] cannot
be returned to the custody of [his] parents as provided in section
232.102 at the present time.

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h).

James contests only the fourth element—that N.H. could not be returned to

his custody at the present time. We interpret “at the present time” to mean “at the

time of the termination hearing.” In re R.M.-V., 13 N.W.3d 620, 626 (Iowa Ct. App.

2024). James argues that termination was improper because “the juvenile court

could have safely returned the child to the father’s home on the date of termination

with his having obtained adequate housing.” We disagree for several reasons.

First, James has not addressed his long-term substance use. See A.B.,

815 N.W.2d at 776 (“We have long recognized that an unresolved, severe, and

chronic drug addiction can render a parent unfit to raise children.”). Although he
6

testified that he has not used illegal substances since he went to jail, he has not

participated in drug testing, obtained a substance-use evaluation, or engaged in

treatment. He also has not addressed his mental-health needs by engaging in

recommended therapy. Nor has he completed domestic violence prevention or

SafeCare programming.

Beyond that, James could not offer N.H. a stable home at the time of the

termination hearing. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). He had

been out of jail for less than one month. He did not have housing or transportation

of his own or a steady source of income. And he acknowledged in his testimony

that he could not “support [N.H.] solely by [himself] at this point.” What’s more, the

department case worker and the GAL both expressed concerns about his ability to

adequately care for N.H. On this record, we cannot conclude that N.H. could be

safely returned to James’s custody. The State proved the ground for termination

under section 232.116(1)(h) by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Delay in Permanency

James next argues that the juvenile court should have granted his request

to defer termination. To allow a parent more time to work towards reunification,

the juvenile court must find that the need for removal will no longer exist at the end

of a six-month extension. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). This record does not

support a delay in permanency. James acknowledged in his testimony that it could

take “up to . . . a year” for him to obtain employment, housing, and transportation

of his own. And we agree with the juvenile court’s assessment that based on

James’s “lack of contact with [N.H.], his lack of engagement with services, and his

need to begin treatment and mental health services, reunification is not likely to
7

occur within 6 months.” Finally, for the reasons detailed below, we find that a delay

in permanency is not in N.H.’s best interests. See In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315,

323 (Iowa 2021) (explaining parents must not only show impediments to returning

the child to their custody will be resolved in six months, but also that further delay

is in the child’s best interests).

C. Best Interests

As a fallback position, James claims that it would be in N.H.’s best interests

to establish a guardianship rather than terminate his parental rights. But James

did not ask the juvenile court to establish a guardianship at the termination hearing.

Nor does he name a potential guardian. So we cannot conclude the juvenile court

should have established a guardianship. See M.H., 12 N.W.3d at 162–63.

Like the juvenile court, we find that termination is in N.H.’s best interests.

We give primary consideration to N.H.’s safety, to the best placement for fostering

his “long-term nurturing and growth,” and to his “physical, mental, and emotional

condition and needs.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). We also consider N.H.’s

integration into his foster family.6 Id. § 232.116(2)(b).

James’s unresolved substance use, mental-health needs, and domestic

violence issues, along with his lack of participation in offered services and lack of

consistent contact with N.H. raise concerns about N.H.’s future stability and safety

in his care. See In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994) (“We gain insight

into the child’s prospects by reviewing evidence of the parent’s past performance—

for it may be indicative of the parent’s future capabilities.”). On the other hand,

6N.H.’s aunt received her foster care license in December 2024. The court
modified his placement status from relative placement to foster care that month.
8

N.H. has been in the care of his maternal aunt for over a year—a significant portion

of his life. He is doing well in her care, and she has been able to meet his needs.

She wants to adopt him. She also has custody of N.H.’s older half-brother, who

she has already adopted. And N.H. is bonded with them.7 We conclude that

termination of James’s parental rights is in N.H.’s best interests to enable N.H.’s

permanent placement in an adoptive home. See In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 173

(Iowa 2020).

AFFIRMED.

7 At the termination hearing, the aunt told the court that N.H. and his brother are

“two peas in a pod.” She reported that N.H. is “happy, he’s healthy, he’s living his
absolute best life.” The GAL also noted that N.H. “is bonded to placement” in
concluding that “it’s in [his] best interest to keep him where he is.”