best-interests analysis in Iowa

2025We also consider the children’s integration in their new environment, Iowa Code § 232.116 (2)(b), mindful that their 3 “safety and need for a permanent home” are essential factors in the best-interests inquiry, see In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).

2025The “defining elements” in the best-interests analysis are the “child[ren]’s safety” and “need for a permanent home.” In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).

2023We (1) “determine if a ground for termination exists under [Iowa Code] section 232.116(1)”; (2) consider the best-interests factors under section 232.116(2); and (3) “decide if any exceptions to termination exist under section 232.116(3).” Id. at 40–41.

2023She appeals.1 In reviewing termination decisions, we (1) “determine if a ground for termination exists under [Iowa Code] section 232.116(1) [(2022)]”; (2) consider the best-interests factors under section 232.116(2); and (3) “decide if any exceptions to termination exist under section 232.116(3).” P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 40–41.

2020See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (“A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best interests.”); see also In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010) (concluding termination was appropriate under the best-interests analysis because “we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a [statutory] ground for termination”).

2020See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (“A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best interests.”); see also In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010) (concluding termination was appropriate under the best-interests analysis because “we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a [statutory] ground for termination”).

2026Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 698 (noting evidence of domestic abuse is an important consideration in custody determinations and may weigh heavily against certain custodial arrangements). 8 But the inquiry does not end there.

2021“The best-interests standard ‘provides the flexibility necessary to consider unique custody issues on a case-by-case basis.’” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007)).

2023In re Q.G., 911 N.W.2d 761, 771 (Iowa 2018).

2022We also weigh the child’s “physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs” and the “closeness of the parent-child relationship.” In re Q.G., 911 N.W.2d 761, 771 (Iowa 2018) (borrowing from Iowa Code section 232.116(2)–(3) to flesh out the best- interests test).

2020See, e.g., D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 706–07 (providing, “Termination of parental rights under chapter 232 follows a three-step analysis”: determining whether a statutory ground has been established, applying the best-interests framework, and then considering any statutory exceptions set out in section 232.116(3) should preclude termination of parental rights). 6 termination of parent’s rights where teenaged children objected, noting the children’s wishes were relevant and could not be ignored but were not controlling); In re A.S., No. 16-1984, 2017 WL 710562, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2017) (aff

2019Id.  If so, we then apply the best-interests framework of section 232.116(2).

2025See In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 527 (Iowa 2019) (requiring the State to “show reasonable efforts as a part of its ultimate proof the child cannot safely be returned to the care of a parent” (citation omitted)).

2020See In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 529 (Iowa 2019) (“In determining best interests, ‘we look to the child’s long-range as well as immediate interests,’ ‘consider[] what the future holds for the child if returned to the parents,’ and weigh ‘the child’s safety and need for a permanent home.’” (citation omitted)).

2025See In re L.A., ___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 855764 , at *3 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc) (“We interpret the father’s bond-based argument as a best-interests argument rather than a permissive-exception argument because his issue heading referenced only best interests and that is the thrust of his argument.”). 8 for the child[ren].” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted).

2024The court is given wide discretion “based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best interests of the child, whether to apply the factors in this section to save the parent-child relationship.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted).

2024App. 2007) (finding that “a trial court with jurisdiction over a custody matter has inherent authority to decide a dispute between parents with joint custody as to the education of the child, using the best-interests standard”); Tamari v. Turko-Tamari, 599 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. Dist.

2024App. 2007) (finding that “a trial court with jurisdiction over a custody matter has inherent authority to decide a dispute between parents with joint custody as to the education of the child, using the best-interests standard”); Tamari v. Turko-Tamari, 599 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. Dist.

2022We may glean insight to a child’s future “from evidence of the parent’s past performance for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care that parent is capable of providing.” A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 778 (citation omitted).

2020See Iowa Code § 232.116 (2); In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 776 (“Even after we have determined that statutory grounds for termination exist, we must still determine whether termination is in the children’s best interests.”); In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 , 40–41 (Iowa 2010) (discussing the best interests of the child test).

2023See In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (noting that the “defining elements” of the best-interests analysis are a child’s safety and “need for a permanent home” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Petithory, 702 N.W.2d 854, 859 (Iowa 2005) (“No parent should leave . . . small children in the care of a meth addict—the hazards are too great.”).

2023See Bowen v. Kaplan, 237 N.W.2d 799, 801 (Iowa 1976).

2023See In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 747 (Iowa 1981).

2023Because both children were in the care of the maternal grandmother, the mother and father argue that a legal guardianship with her would serve the children’s best interests. “[O]ur courts have recognized the permanency and stability needs of the children must come first.” In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).

2022The best-interests analysis requires that we “give primary consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116 (2); see also In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687 , 690–91 (Iowa 2010).

2020See, e.g., D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 706–07 (providing, “Termination of parental rights under chapter 232 follows a three-step analysis”: determining whether a statutory ground has been established, applying the best-interests framework, and then considering any statutory exceptions set out in section 232.116(3) should preclude termination of parental rights). 6 termination of parent’s rights where teenaged children objected, noting the children’s wishes were relevant and could not be ignored but were not controlling); In re A.S., No. 16-1984, 2017 WL 710562, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2017) (aff

2020We respect that “[t]he trial court has the advantage of hearing the evidence and observing the witnesses.” In re Marriage of Brainard, 523 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).

2019See In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (noting that a father lacked standing to assert the mother’s claim “on her behalf in an effort to ultimately gain a benefit for himself, that is, the reversal of the termination of his parental rights”). 6 consider whether any statutory exceptions exist to preclude termination of parental rights.

2018Iowa Code § 232.117 (3)(c); A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477. “[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477 (citing In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017)). 2 As noted, we have considered the child’s preference in the best-interests analysis, notwithstanding the inapplicability of the statutory exception. 7 The primary factor that augurs in favor of a guardianship is the child’s desire to reunite with his mother.

2017See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010) (directing court to apply “the best-interest framework established in section 232.116(2)”); S.O., 483 N.W.2d at 604 (terminating despite “strong bond” between mother and children when mother failed to protect children from abusive father).