In the Interest of O.H., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-1241
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-1241 Filed December 17, 2025

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

M.D., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

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

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter.

AFFIRMED.

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

mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Leah Patton of Patton Legal Services LLC, Ames, attorney and guardian ad

litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and

Langholz, JJ. 2

LANGHOLZ, Judge.

A daughter was removed from her mother’s custody after the mother tested

positive for methamphetamine once during her pregnancy and again when the

daughter was four months old. In the months that followed, the mother continued

to regularly test positive for methamphetamine, despite repeated attempts at

substance-use treatment. Once the young daughter had been removed from her

mother’s custody for over a year with no reunification in sight, the State moved to

terminate the mother’s parental rights and the juvenile court agreed.

The mother now appeals, urging that the State failed to prove a ground for

termination because the positive drug screens were caused by a prescription

medication and that termination was not in the child’s best interest because a

guardianship was more appropriate. But like the juvenile court, we find the drug

screens were not false positives and the mother’s substance-use issues prevented

the return of the daughter to her custody. And given the daughter’s very young

age, an indeterminate guardianship is contrary to the daughter’s needs for

permanency and stability. Thus, we affirm the juvenile court.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings

In the summer of 2023, the mother1 tested positive for methamphetamine

and THC while pregnant with the daughter. She welcomed the daughter in

December, and both the mother and daughter tested negative for all illicit

substances at the time of birth. Still, the Iowa Department of Health and Human

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 § 232.147(2) (2025), with id. §§ 602.4301(2), 602.5110; see also Iowa Ct. R. 21.25. 3

Services (“HHS”) conducted a child-abuse assessment shortly after the daughter

was born based on concerns that the mother’s “mental health needs” would “limit

her ability to care for the newborn child.”2

At first, the mother successfully participated in parenting courses and the

daughter appeared well cared for. But then the mother tested positive for

methamphetamine in April and again in May. So HHS imposed a safety plan—

later formalized in a removal order—placing the daughter with the mother’s

significant other. And the daughter was adjudicated in need of assistance a few

weeks later.

Over the next year, the mother’s recovery never got off the ground. She

was twice unsuccessfully discharged from substance-use treatment programs

before eventually completing a third program. All the while, she continued to

regularly test positive for methamphetamine and THC. As for the daughter, she

was moved to a foster care placement after the mother’s significant other allowed

a previously registered sex offender to move into the home. And although the

mother’s visits with the daughter went well, she never progressed beyond fully-

supervised, out-of-home visits.

In June 2025, the State petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

During the termination hearing, the mother insisted she had been sober for two

years and that every positive drug screen was caused by her prescription

medication. In response, the HHS social worker testified that she has had other

parents take the same medication without any false-positive issues. After weighing

2 The father’s parental rights were also terminated in this proceeding. Because he does not appeal, we focus on the mother. 4

the evidence, the juvenile court ultimately terminated the mother’s parental rights

under paragraph “h” of Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2025).

The mother now appeals, and we review the juvenile court’s decision de

novo. In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 322 (Iowa 2021).

II. Termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)

To permanently sever the mother’s parental rights to the daughter, the

juvenile court must find the State proved two elements by clear and convincing

evidence: (1) a statutory ground justifies termination, and (2) termination is in the

daughter’s best interest. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(2). The mother challenges

both elements, disputing that the State carried its burdens.

First considering the statutory ground, at the time of the hearing the

daughter was under three years old, was adjudicated in need of assistance, and

had been removed from her mother’s custody for over a year. See id.

§ 232.116(1)(h)(1)–(3). So the mother focuses her advocacy on the fourth

element, asserting the daughter could have been returned to her custody at the

time of the hearing. Id. § 232.116(1)(h)(4). And her argument centers on her

disputed sobriety, renewing her position that she has been sober since 2023 and

all positive drug screens were caused by a prescription medication.

Like the juvenile court, we do not find the mother’s explanation credible. For

starters, the mother offered no evidence supporting her false-positive theory other

than her own testimony. That testimony, in turn, was based on alleged Internet

searches about what medications could cause positive methamphetamine results.

She never disclosed which online sources she reviewed, preventing us from

weighing the plausibility or strength of her claim. What’s more, the HHS social 5

worker testified to her past experiences with other parents taking the same

medication without testing positive for methamphetamine. So we find the mother’s

repeated positive drug screens during the life of the child-in-need-of-assistance

proceedings “are sufficient proof of her drug use and clear and convincing

evidence that the [daughter] should not be returned to the mother’s custody.” In

re A.W., No. 18-0382, 2018 WL 2084913, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 2, 2018); see

also In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992) (explaining a child cannot be

returned to her parent’s custody “if by doing so the child would be exposed to any

harm amounting to a new child in need of assistance adjudication”).

III. Best Interest

The mother next contests whether termination is in the daughter’s best

interest. Our best-interest analysis is guided by the daughter’s safety, as well as

her “physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs.” Iowa Code

§ 232.116(2). On appeal, as she did below, the mother argues that a guardianship

with the daughter’s foster family would adequately protect the daughter, and thus

termination is contrary to her best interest.

Again, we agree with the juvenile court that termination is best for the

daughter. The daughter was four months old when she was removed and was

roughly eighteen months old at the time of the termination hearing. At her young

age, imposing an indeterminate guardianship would undermine the essential goals

of stability and permanency that permeate our child-welfare scheme. See In re

A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2018) (rejecting guardianship as an alternative

to termination for a two-year-old child, explaining the potentially sixteen-year

guardianship period would destabilize the child’s future). 6

Because the daughter cannot be returned to her mother’s custody and is

entitled to permanency now, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.