In the Interest of G.H. and K.K., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 25-1350
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-1350 Filed October 29, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF G.H. and K.K., Minor Children,

J.K., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey,

Judge.

A father appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to

two children. AFFIRMED.

Michael S. Fisher of Fisher Law Office, New Sharon, for appellant father.

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

General, for appellee State.

Samuel K. Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and

Langholz, JJ. 2

BADDING, Judge.

Two children, born in 2017 and 2018, came to the attention of the Iowa

Department of Health and Human Services after they were found alone in a gas

station before dawn. Following additional reports of neglect, case workers visited

the father’s home, which was in disarray. The father disclosed that he had recently

relapsed on methamphetamine, a drug he has struggled with since he was ten

years old.

The children were removed from the father’s custody in May 2024 and

adjudicated in need of assistance the following month. Over the next year, the

father lost his housing, cycled in and out of jail, and continued to use

methamphetamine. When it came time for a hearing on the State’s petition to

terminate his parental rights, the father was back in jail. The juvenile court

terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e),

(f), (g), (i), and (l) (2025).1 The father appeals that decision. Our review is de novo.

In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022).

We generally apply a three-step analysis when reviewing the termination of

parental rights. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). But because the

father challenges neither the statutory grounds for termination nor whether a

permissive exception should be applied, we need not consider those steps.2 Id.

1 By the same order, the juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of the

children’s mother under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), among other grounds. The mother does not appeal, so we do not mention her further. 2 To be sure, the father contends that due to his “lifetime bond with the children,”

termination “is far more detrimental” than the risks they face in his care. Although this language tracks the parent-child bond exception in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c), the father only makes the argument under the best-interest analysis in section 232.116(2). Following the father’s lead, we consider this 3

The only question before us is whether terminating the father’s rights serves the

best interests of the children when considering their present and future safety, their

long-term growth, and their physical, mental, and emotional needs. Iowa Code

§ 232.116(2).

This is not the first time the department has been involved in the lives of

these children. A pair of previous child-welfare cases closed in 2020 through

bridge orders that placed the children in the father’s custody. The father was able

to meet the children’s needs while sharing a home with his now-estranged wife.

He recounted at the hearing: “I spent most of my time sleeping and working, and

she spent most of the time with the kids.” But things fell apart when the wife moved

out. The father lost his job and relapsed on methamphetamine after six years of

sobriety. The children began arriving at school with dirty clothes and empty

stomachs. Sometimes, the older child would sleep all day. The department later

learned that the father had stopped taking the child to his medication-management

appointments.

Both children have significant behavioral needs, which has made foster

placement challenging. G.H. was placed in six different foster homes in the

fourteen months following removal. For K.K., it was ten. At the termination

hearing, they were still in separate short-term foster settings, neither of which was

pre-adoptive. A relative had recently stepped forward as a potential long-term

placement, but he was not willing to take the children unless the father’s parental

argument within the best-interests framework. See In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 535 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (“[T]he parent-child bond is a relevant consideration in the best-interests analysis.”). 4

rights were terminated. Given this uncertain future, the father argues that

terminating his parental rights is not in the children’s best interests.

“We cannot assume termination guarantees adoption.” See In re H.H., 528

N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Still, in some cases, terminating a parent’s

rights rather than leaving them intact is the better path toward permanency.

See, e.g., In re T.M., No. 25-0252, 2025 WL 1706566, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.

June 18, 2025) (finding termination of a parent’s rights to three children was in their

best interests “even though adoptive homes had not yet been secured”); In re J.R.,

No. 23-0317, 2023 WL 3612385, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. May 24, 2023) (“While we

agree it would be better if the department had a concurrent placement plan for [the

child], we still think termination of the mother’s rights better serves [the child]’s best

interests than not given her inability to make sustained progress . . . .”). The

juvenile court determined that was the case here, finding:

[The children] are six and seven respectively. The Court heard repeatedly through testimony about their challenging behaviors. They each have been through an alarming number of placements. It is heartbreaking. [The children] each need and deserve a safe, stable, and long-term, loving home. . . . .... . . . [The children’s] continued exposure to [the father’s] behavior is harmful to them. His presence in their life has been inconsistent, which is emotionally detrimental. His behavior has been aggressive and violent. His methamphetamine use disorder is untreated. His mental health issues are numerous and severe. Severing parental ties between [the father] and the children will open familial connections and resources that increase the likelihood of a long-term relative or fictive kin placement. . . .

We agree. These children had neither safety nor stability at the time of their

removal, and the father has failed to make the necessary changes to recover from

his backslide into addiction. By his own estimation, he would need at least “three 5

or four months” after his release from custody before he could care for the children

again. We decline to make them wait. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112

(Iowa 2014) (explaining “we cannot deprive a child of permanency . . . by hoping

someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home”).

Despite the present uncertainty surrounding the children’s long-term care, the

State has proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in their best

interests.

AFFIRMED.