In the Interest of D.B.-C., Minor Child

── In the Interest of D.B.-C., Minor Child ── Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-2100 Filed April 15, 2026 _______________ In the Interest of D.B.-C., Minor Child, R.B.-C., Father, Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, The Honorable Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Luke C. Jenson of Jenson Law Firm, PLC, Waterloo, attorney for appellant father. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee State. Kimberly S. Lange of Public Defenders Office, Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. 1 SANDY, Judge. A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights to his child, D.B.-C. He argues that termination of his parental rights is not in the child’s best interests and, in the alternative, that a permissive exception to termination should apply. On our de novo review, we affirm. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS D.B.-C. was born in 2023. The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) became involved with the family in February 2024 after an allegation of maltreatment. HHS received information that a registered sex offender was staying in the same apartment that the child was living in. Additionally, while visiting the home, a child protective worker found illegal substances. Both the mother and father were arrested, taken into custody, and later released. D.B.-C. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) and was placed in family foster care. At a dispositional hearing, the court adopted a permanency plan that permitted both parents supervised visits. The parents were required to participate in services offered by HHS, including substance-use evaluation and treatment, drug testing, and other rehabilitative support. The juvenile court found that the father “did not significantly participate in the services offered by HHS.” At the permanency hearing on February 24, 2025, the juvenile court ruled that the child would remain in HHS’s custody for an additional six months to allow the father time to comply with the permanency plan. The father was again required to consistently engage in visitations with the child, participate in parenting programs, utilize family centered services, and comply with random drug testing. 2  The mother had similar requirements. Throughout the proceedings, the mother was engaged in services provided by HHS, successfully participated in random drug testing, completed the Safe Care program, and complied with other HHS services required by the juvenile court. The child was placed in the mother’s custody with supervision provided by HHS, where she remains today.1 The father, however, failed to engage with most of the services and programs required by the court. He only participated in visits with the child sporadically and did not move on from supervised visits. The father also missed multiple drug tests and failed every drug test he completed. He only began to participate in the Safe Care program shortly before the termination trial. On November 24, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2025). The juvenile court found that the statutory grounds for termination had been est