In the Interest of V.S., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2196
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of V.S., Minor Child,
V.P., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Erik I. Howe, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Michael A. Horn of Horn Law Offices, Des Moines,
attorney for appellant mother.

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

Jami J. Hagemeier of Youth Law Center, Des Moines,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.
Opinion by Tabor, C.J.

1
TABOR, Chief Judge.

A mother, Vanessa, appeals the order terminating her parental rights
to V.S., her three-year-old daughter. She argues that termination is not in the
child’s best interests, that the closeness of their bond should preclude
termination, and that a guardianship would be preferable. After an
independent assessment of the record, we affirm the termination order.1

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

Vanessa has six children. V.S., born in 2022, is the youngest. V.S. has
a different father than her five siblings. The family came to the attention of
the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services in January 2024 when
the police were called to Vanessa’s home on a report of domestic violence.2
Vanessa was intoxicated and assaulted V.S.’s father, Steven, and her oldest
daughter, K.P.3 The juvenile court approved the removal of all six children.
The department placed the five oldest children with their father, Daniel, and
V.S. with her maternal aunt.

In March, the court adjudicated V.S. and her siblings as CINA. Three
months later, Steven was hospitalized and died. The department reported
that Vanessa had been with him at the hospital despite a protective order

1
“We review termination of parental rights de novo. We are not bound by the
factual findings of the juvenile court, though we give them respectful consideration,
particularly with respect to credibility determinations.” In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312
(Iowa 2021) (internal citation omitted).
2
An earlier children-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) case for the six children closed
in Warren County in 2023.
3
Vanessa entered an Alford plea to domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury
and assault causing bodily injury. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)
(permitting a criminal defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt).

2
prohibiting their contact. In assessing Vanessa’s fitness to resume custody of
the children, the department noted her “history of being in domestically
violent relationships” with both Daniel and Steven. The department was also
concerned about Vanessa’s “years of alcohol abuse” and her struggles with
anxiety and depression.4 Finally, the department reported that her visitation
was inconsistent.

In January 2025, the juvenile court issued a permanency order, noting
the mother’s unresolved substance-use, domestic violence, and mental-
health issues. The court set a termination hearing for April 2025.5

By the April hearing, Vanessa had made some improvement. She
tested negative for all substances and testified to being sober since
September 2024. The court credited her explanation that she did not use
marijuana for “recreational purposes” but instead to treat panic attacks. And
although she was unemployed, she’d been going to therapy. As to her
participation in services, the juvenile court found, “[o]n balance, . . . though
the trend upward was slight, there has been a general trend upward in her
engagement.” Because of this improvement, the juvenile court denied
termination and deferred permanency with the goal of reunification.

But at the review hearing in August 2025, the juvenile court did not
see the continued improvement it had hoped for. The court held a
termination hearing in November. Together, the August and November
hearings illuminated those same looming problems: alcohol consumption and

4
Vanessa carried a medical marijuana card, but the department could not obtain a
release to verify her purchases were legal. She told the court in November 2024 that she
used marijuana for her anxiety but was trying to “wean herself off” the drug.
5
Also in April, the court issued a bridge order, granting Daniel sole legal custody
of the five older children.

3
domestic violence. As to her drinking, Vanessa claimed she had been sober
for 197 days. But the department case manager received reports that Vanessa
was “continuously going to the bars with her boyfriend and drinking.” As for
violent relationships, Vanessa reported being assaulted by her new boyfriend,
Jacob, in June. The State obtained a no-contact order prohibiting interactions
between Jacob and Vanessa. Vanessa later tried to dismiss the order. And
although Vanessa denied maintaining a relationship with Jacob, the service
provider testified she saw Vanessa’s vehicle parked outside his house.6

Beyond those concerns over substance use and domestic violence,
Vanessa’s participation in services was not stellar. She attended only fifteen
of the twenty-nine visits offered with V.S. between April and October 2025.
Vanessa blamed the department for the inconsistencies rather than take
accountability for her actions.

The juvenile court terminated Vanessa’s rights to her daughter under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2025). Vanessa appeals.

II. Analysis

We review termination cases in three steps. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280,
294 (Iowa 2021). First, the State must prove a statutory ground for
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1). Id. Second, the State must
show termination is in the child’s best interests under section 232.116(2). Id.
Third, parents may rely on exceptions to termination under
section 232.116(3). Id. We address only those steps that a parent disputes. See
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

6
The juvenile court believed the service provider and did not find Vanessa’s
denials to be credible.

4
A. Best Interests

Vanessa first contends termination is not in V.S.’s best interests. In
determining best interests, we give primary consideration to the child’s
safety, to the best placement for furthering her long-term nurturing and
growth, and to her physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs. Iowa
Code § 232.116(2).

Vanessa points out, “[p]ast performance is not an absolute predictor
of the future; it only may be indicative of what the future holds.” In re J.T.,
No. 15-1338, 2015 WL 5969450, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2015). She
emphasizes that she’d completed substance-use treatment, provided
negative drug screens, engaged in therapy, had stable housing, and was
employed with sufficient income. Lastly, she reminds us that terminating her
parental rights to V.S. severs the relationship V.S. has with her five siblings.

While not diminishing those measures of stability, we still find
termination of Vanessa’s parental rights promotes V.S.’s best interests. True,
past performance cannot perfectly forecast future parenting fitness. But here
the juvenile court delayed permanency for V.S. because Vanessa started to
make progress. Yet Vanessa cycled back to troubling behaviors. She
continued to spend time in bars and pursue a romantic relationship with an
unsafe paramour.7 Her testimony shows she has not taken accountability for
these decisions and even sought to drop the no-contact order against her
paramour. Vanessa denies frequenting bars or carrying on a romantic
relationship, but the district court did not find her credible. Meanwhile, V.S.

7
Vanessa completed a course of outpatient substance-use treatment and was
successfully discharged in 2024. We commend her for this work, but her recent outings to
bars do not convince us she has stopped drinking.

5
is bonded to her aunt and doing well in that placement, where she’s been for
nearly two years.

Lastly, we consider V.S.’s contact with her siblings. We recognize that
our statutes and case law emphasize the importance of sibling relationships.
See In re I.P., No. 19-0715, 2019 WL 3317922, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24,
2019); see also Iowa Code § 232.108. But preserving Vanessa’s parental rights
does not ensure close contact among all her children. The record shows V.S.
and her siblings see each other only occasionally now. Daniel testified that
Vanessa spent little time visiting the older children. For these reasons, we
find termination is in V.S.’s best interests.

B. Exceptions to Termination

Next, Vanessa contends that a factor in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)
applies to preclude termination. Vanessa highlights the fact that V.S. calls her
“golden mommy.” And according to Vanessa, termination would be harmful
to V.S. because of the bond they share. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c); In re
A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021) (placing burden on parent to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that “termination would be detrimental to the
child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship”
(citation omitted)).

The State contests this point, arguing Vanessa did not preserve error.
Assuming without deciding error was preserved, we find this exception does
not preclude termination.

Exceptions to termination “are permissive, not mandatory.” In re A.S.,
906 N.W.2d 467, 475 (Iowa 2018). Contrary to Vanessa’s contention, the
record does not show a strong bond between her and V.S. In fact, V.S. once

6
asked if Vanessa was her sister. Vanessa did not carry her burden to show this
permissive exception applied to avoid termination of parental rights.

C. Guardianship

Lastly, Vanessa asks us to preserve her parental rights and place V.S.
in a guardianship with the child’s aunt. But “a guardianship is not a legally
preferable alternative to termination.” In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2017). And what’s more, a guardianship “can only be ordered if the
court first finds that convincing evidence exists showing termination of the
parent-child relationship is not in the child’s best interests . . . .” Id. at 32–33.
Here, we’ve already found termination is in V.S.’s best interests.

A guardianship is appropriate in some circumstances, such as when
the parent and guardian “have a close, mature, and healthy relationship that
is free of conflict.” W.M., 957 N.W.2d at 315 (quoting B.T., 894 N.W.2d at 32).
But here, there is no evidence of such a relationship. In fact, at trial Vanessa
admitted her relationship with her sister was “strained.”

V.S. needs stability, and she has found it with her aunt. To avoid
creating more uncertainty for V.S., we decline Vanessa’s request for a
guardianship and instead affirm the juvenile court’s termination of Vanessa’s
parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

7