In the Interest of N.F. and Z.M., Minor Children, A.G., Mother, 17-0392

Children removed Nov 2015 after newborn tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine; older children also tested positive and were placed in foster care.
Alexis has an extensive, long‑standing substance‑abuse history (methamphetamine, marijuana, alcohol) and inconsistent engagement in treatment; multiple substance‑abuse evaluations and sporadic treatment from Nov 2015–Jan 2017.
Alexis showed inconsistent visitation (attended <50% of visits; long gaps >1 month) and limited participation in her children’s therapy; one child developed emotional problems from her absence; another (Z.M.) diagnosed with autism and required specialized services which Alexis did not follow.
Juvenile court terminated Alexis’s parental rights to Z.M. under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h) in Dec 2016; held §232.116(1)(f) for N.F. was not met by one day, directed State to refile.
State refiled; after Alexis’s continued substance use and a late admission to residential treatment weeks before the second hearing, the juvenile court terminated Alexis’s rights to both N.F. and Z.M. under §232.116(1)(f) and (h); Alexis appealed.
On de novo review, the Court of Appeals found clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to Alexis at the time of the termination hearing and that a six‑month extension was not warranted; affirmed termination.

Issue	Alexis' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether children could be returned to Alexis "at the present time" for purposes of termination under §232.116(1)(f) and (h)	Alexis: She was in treatment (House of Mercy) that permits children to be in parent’s care, so children could be returned	State: Alexis’s long history of substance use, inconsistent treatment and visitation, and recent relapse show children could not safely be returned	Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned at the hearing date; last‑minute treatment insufficient
Whether the court should grant a six‑month extension under §232.102 for reunification	Alexis: Needs additional time; recent treatment entry could improve conditions	State: Alexis had >1 year and failed to complete treatment or achieve abstinence; delay would harm children’s permanency needs	Held: Affirmed denial — extension not justified given past performance, ongoing substance/mental‑health issues, and children’s need for permanency

In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) ("at the present time" refers to date of termination hearing)
In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review and weight given to credibility in child‑welfare cases)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (appellate affirmance may rest on any ground supported by clear and convincing evidence)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (courts distrust last‑minute attempts to remedy longstanding parental deficiencies)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (parent’s past performance can predict future parenting capacity)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (child’s need for permanency outweighs speculative possibility of future reunification)