In the Interest of A.M., Minor Child, A.M., Father
2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 17
| Iowa | 2014Background
- A.M., a one-year-old, was adjudicated CINA and removed from Jessica and Allen's care shortly after birth.
- DHS action focused on Jessica's feeding issues, mental health history, and Allen's inconsistent medication for Tourette's.
- The court initially placed A.M. in foster care with supervised visits; later A.M. also spent time in maternal grandparents' care.
- Multiple permanency plans and regular DHS/service provider reports indicated ongoing concerns about parenting skills, finances, and safe supervision.
- By late 2012–2013, despite substantial services and some progress, agencies recommended termination to achieve permanency; the grandparents pursued adoption as a potential permanent home.
- The juvenile court terminated parental rights to A.M.; the Court of Appeals reversed, prompting Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grounds for termination proven? | State: clear and convincing evidence shows cannot be safely returned. | Parents: evidence does not demonstrate imminent harm if returned; not clear and convincing. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 232.116(1)(h). |
| Best interests of the child? | Termination necessary for permanency and safety; adoption by grandparents best. | Maintaining parental rights possible with more services and time. | Termination is in A.M.'s best interests. |
| Exceptions to termination under 232.116(3)? | No applicable exceptions; cannot rely on reunification. | One could argue closeness of bond or relative custody. | None of the subsection (3) exceptions apply. |
| Standard of review sustainment? | De novo review appropriate for termination determinations. | Lower court credibility should be afforded weight. | The Court reviews de novo with weight given to the juvenile court's findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010), 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (service providers' and GAL lack of reunification recommendation; impact of mental functioning)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010), 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (timeframe balancing parent's progress and child's permanency; limitations on waiting)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006), 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (defining elements and permanency considerations in best interests)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012), 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (prioritizing child safety and need for permanent placement; limits on prolonged delays)
- In re Z.T.D., 478 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991), 478 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (cannot base termination on mere economic factors; focus on parent decision making)