In the Interest of N.L., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2200
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of N.L., Minor Child,
L.R., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County,
The Honorable Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, attorney for appellant mother.

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

Julie Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

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

1
LANGHOLZ, Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s entry of a bridge modification
order in her seven-year-old son’s child-in-need-of-assistance (“CINA”) case.
That order closed this CINA case, returned jurisdiction to the district court,
and modified a prior custody order by granting sole legal custody and physical
care to the son’s father. See Iowa Code § 232.103B (2024). The mother
requests that we vacate the bridge modification order so the CINA case can
remain open to allow her “additional time to achieve reunification.”1

On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that the CINA
case could safely close by entering the bridge modification order. We also
agree that it is in the son’s best interest to grant the father sole legal custody
and physical care with supervised visits from the mother. And on this record,
we cannot find that the need for removal would no longer exist after a six-
month extension of the CINA proceedings. See id. § 232.104(2)(b). We thus
find that giving the mother more time would not be proper or in the son’s
best interest. So we affirm the juvenile court’s entry of the bridge
modification order.

I.

These unmarried parents welcomed a son in 2018. They separated
when the son was about three years old. And a previous CINA proceeding
for the son ended in late 2022 with a bridge order granting the mother sole
legal custody and placing the son in her physical care with alternating
weekend visitation for the father.

1
We avoid using the parties’ names to respect their privacy because this opinion—
unlike the juvenile court’s order—is public. Compare Iowa Code §§ 232.103B(5),
232.147(2), with id. §§ 602.4301(2), 602.5110; see also Iowa Ct. R. 21.25.

2
The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health
and Human Services (“HHS”) again in August 2024 due to concerns that
the mother was using methamphetamine while caring for the son. During an
unannounced home visit, the mother admitted to a social worker “that she
had relapsed on methamphetamine approximately a month ago.” Based on
that information, the juvenile court granted HHS’s application to remove the
son from the mother’s home and place him with the father.

The State filed a CINA petition, to which both parents stipulated. The
juvenile court thus adjudicated the son as a child in need of assistance and
continued his placement with the father after the temporary removal hearing
in September 2024. The court also ordered the mother to participate in
supervised visits with the son, cooperate with drug testing four times per
month, and “continue to address her mental health and substance abuse
issues as recommended by professionals.” And it ordered the father to
cooperate with drug testing twice per month.

The court entered its dispositional order in October 2024. The court
continued the son’s placement in the father’s custody with the permanency
goal to “return [the] child to home” with the mother. Around that time, the
mother also started participating in family treatment court.

Over the next several months, the mother underwent a psychological
evaluation, attended mental-health therapy and substance-use treatment,
participated in regular supervised visits with the son, got a job, and had stable
housing at a transitional-living facility in Cedar Rapids. Following the
disposition review hearings in February and June 2025, the permanency goal
remained “family reunification.”

3
But after the August permanency hearing, the court entered an order
changing the permanency goal to “maintain with father” based on the
recommendations of HHS and the son’s guardian ad litem. The court found
that HHS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. The court also
ordered the parties to participate in a staffing to discuss bridge orders and a
long-term visitation arrangement.

Meanwhile, around October, the mother moved from Cedar Rapids to
a small town in Wapello County about two hours away. And she started living
with a former boyfriend with whom she resumed a relationship. The son was
still living with the father and the father’s girlfriend in Monticello, where he
had been placed throughout the CINA proceedings.

The same month, the father moved for the juvenile court to close the
CINA case by “transferring jurisdiction over the child’s custody, physical
care, and visitation to the district court through a bridge order.” The court
set the matter for hearing in December. At that hearing, the mother’s counsel
requested that the juvenile court “not close the case with entry of a bridge
order, but instead allow the CINA to remain open” so the mother could
“continue participating in services and proving to the court and
herself . . . that she is an active, willing participant, and she can do a very
good job with all of this.”

Following the bridge order hearing, the court detailed its concerns
about continuing the CINA proceedings and returning the son to the
mother’s custody:
The mother has utilized services in this matter and has been actively
involved with the child, however, she has not achieved meaningful
progress. She abruptly moved to [Wapello County] recently which is
several hours away from the child to be with her boyfriend. . . . She ended
all services in Cedar Rapids and her impulsivity is concerning evidence

4
that she is either re-engaged in substance use or her mental health is not
stable. The Court is also extremely concerned that the boyfriend appears
to be controlling and the relationship is not healthy, therefore being unsafe
for the child. The mother is currently on fully supervised visits and it is
unsafe to the child to expand that visitation. Further, the mother and her
boyfriend are purposely alienating the child from his father, harming him
emotionally. . . . The child must be protected from controlling, volatile
behavior and emotionally damaging situations. Further, the parents cannot
communicate well and are not able to coparent in any type of constructive
manner to the extent of having any type of shared custody or shared
physical care.

And so, the juvenile court entered a bridge modification order, closing
the CINA case, returning jurisdiction to the district court, and modifying the
prior custody order by granting sole legal custody and physical care to the
father. The court further ordered that the mother “shall have one fully
supervised visitation with the [son] of two hours per week” in Monticello,
along with two supervised phone calls with the son per week. The mother
now appeals.

II.

We review CINA proceedings de novo. In re D.D., 955 N.W.2d 186,
192 (Iowa 2021). We give weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings,
especially regarding witness credibility, but we are not bound by them. In re
A.H., 950 N.W.2d 27, 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). Our primary concern is the
child’s best interest. Id.

A bridge modification order closes a CINA case and returns
jurisdiction over “issues of legal custody, physical care, and parenting time”
to the district court. Iowa Code § 232.103B(1). Before the court can enter
such an order, all these statutory conditions must be met:
a. The child has been adjudicated a [CINA] in an active juvenile court case,
and a permanency order is in place in that case.

5
b. Legal paternity has been established for the child.

c. The child is safely unified with a parent.

d. The district court has issued an order concerning custody, physical care,
and parenting time regarding the child and the order is in place at the time
of the filing of the [CINA] petition.

e. The juvenile court has determined that the [CINA] case can safely close
when the modified district court order for custody, physical care, and
parenting time is in place.

f. Either parent has qualified for a court-appointed attorney in the juvenile
case.

Id. § 232.103B(1)(a)–(f ).

The mother challenges the juvenile court’s entry of the bridge
modification order by highlighting her participation in recommended
services until October 2025, when her lease at the transitional-living facility
in Cedar Rapids ended. She also emphasizes that “she was able to meet [the
son’s] basic needs and consistently provided him love, attention and
emotional support” during her visits with him. Thus, the mother contends:
“Due to her continued progress and lack of any ‘clear and present danger,’
the court should have granted [her] additional time to achieve reunification,
or at a minimum demonstrate her continued ability to remain a safe and sober
caretaker so that supervised visits would not be warranted.” The State
responds that the juvenile court did not err in entering the bridge
modification order because “additional time for the mother was not
appropriate or in the child’s best interests.”2

2
As the State notes in its response to the mother’s petition on appeal, the mother
does not specifically challenge any of the statutory conditions for entry of the bridge
modification order under Iowa Code section 232.103B(1). So we too limit our review.
See In re M.A., No. 25-0940, 2025 WL 2539023, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2025).

6
On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that the CINA
case could safely close by entering the bridge modification order. Here, “[t]he
only impediment to closure of the CINA proceedings [was] the mother’s
instability. The negative impact of that instability was curbed by the terms of
the bridge modification order giving the father legal custody and physical care
of the child[].” In re M.M., No. 24-1700, 2025 WL 273131, at *3 (Iowa Ct.
App. Jan. 23, 2025).

The father has provided a safe and stable home for the son since his
removal from the mother in August 2024. And the visitation terms of the
bridge modification order allow the son to have a continued relationship with
the mother while ensuring his safety. So we also agree that it is in the son’s
best interest to grant the father sole legal custody and physical care with
supervised visits from the mother. See In re M.A., No. 25-0940, 2025 WL
2539023, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2025).

Finally, we are unpersuaded by the mother’s argument that she should
have been given “additional time to achieve reunification.” To continue
placement for an additional six months after a permanency hearing, the
juvenile court must “make a determination the need for removal will no
longer exist at the end of the extension.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92
(Iowa Ct. App. 2005); see Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). The juvenile court
held the initial permanency hearing in August 2025—twelve months after
the son’s removal from the mother’s home. After that hearing, the court
changed the permanency goal to “maintain with father” based on the
recommendations of HHS and the son’s guardian ad litem. At the bridge
order hearing in December 2025, the court noted that it “had actually left the
case open a couple extra months thinking that we would be able to make more
progress with” the mother, but she “made some decisions in the last couple

7
months that seriously impacted [her] ability to have quality time with [her]
son.” The court added that the mother had not provided information about
her involvement in services since her recent, unannounced move away to
Wapello County. And in the bridge modification order entered after that
hearing, the court detailed its concerns about continuing the CINA
proceedings and returning the son to the mother’s custody.

On this record, we cannot find that the need for removal would no
longer exist after a six-month extension. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). And
because the son had already been out of the mother’s home for over twelve
months at the time of the bridge order hearing, “we view the proceedings
with a sense of urgency.” See A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d at 93. Thus, we find that
giving the mother “additional time to achieve reunification”—rather than
closing the CINA case through the bridge modification order—would not be
proper or in the son’s best interest.

AFFIRMED.

8