In the Interest of J.W. and J.W., Minor Children, J.W., Father, 16-2060

Father appealed termination of parental rights for two children (born 2008 and 2014); he conceded statutory grounds for termination but sought an additional six months for reunification.
Children removed from father’s custody in October 2014; placed with a relative willing to adopt and have not been returned.
Father has a long history of untreated mental-health and substance-abuse problems and failed to engage in services offered; trial court found him not credible and that he had done very little to address these needs.
Mother died of a drug overdose during the proceedings while at home with the father and children; father discovered her and did not call for medical help.
Trial court terminated parental rights under multiple subsections of Iowa Code § 232.116; father does not contest grounds but challenges best interests and requests extension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to grant a six-month extension for reunification	Father: allow additional six months because he is now willing to “participate fully going forward.”	State/juvenile court: extension unlikely to make removal need disappear given history and failure to engage.	Denied — court found no reason an extension would result in safe return.
Whether termination is in children’s best interests	Father: termination not in children’s best interests (argues bond).	State: primary consideration is children’s safety, stability, and long-term nurturing; current placement suitable for adoption.	Affirmed — termination best provides safe, stable, caring home.
Whether the parent-child bond precludes termination	Father: existing bond should weigh against termination.	State: younger child largely never lived with father; bond does not overcome other factors.	Bond did not preclude termination; court gave it no weight against termination.
Whether father’s recent efforts excuse delay in addressing problems	Father: recent steps to address substance and mental-health issues justify more time.	State: efforts are too late after statutory periods expired and prior nonengagement.	Court rejected delay claim as untimely; parent cannot wait until eve of termination.

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of de novo review and discussion of permissive nature of § 232.116(3) factors)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (parent cannot wait until eve of termination to begin demonstrating commitment to parenting)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (framework for three-step termination analysis)