In the Interest of A.R., D.R., J.C. and J.C. Minor Children, A.M., Mother
865 N.W.2d 619
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Four children were removed in Jan 2013; CINA adjudications and dispositional orders entered in 2013; children never returned to mother; two older children later placed with their father.
- State filed termination petition alleging multiple grounds including Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d), (f), (g), (h), (k) and (l); juvenile court terminated mother only under (1)(d).
- Adjudication order and CPS assessments referenced denial of critical care and failure to supervise; no explicit adjudication finding of physical or sexual abuse or nonaccidental physical injury in the record.
- The State and record contained references to earlier child‑welfare involvement (2009), but no clear and convincing evidence of a prior CINA adjudication finding physical or sexual abuse/neglect as required by (1)(d)(1).
- Juvenile court found mother uncooperative, attended about half of visits, refused mental‑health assessment, and failed to address adjudication concerns; trial court called the case “not close.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 232.116(1)(d) was proved (predicate CINA finding of physical/sexual abuse or neglect requiring nonaccidental physical injury) | State: termination proper under (1)(d) based on CINA adjudication and ongoing circumstances despite services | Mother: State failed to show services were offered/received and circumstances persisting; visitation constraints hindered reunification | Reversed — record lacks clear and convincing evidence of a prior or current CINA adjudication establishing nonaccidental physical injury as required by (1)(d)(1); therefore (1)(d) cannot support termination |
| Whether a prior CINA adjudication (pre‑dating termination petition) satisfied (1)(d)(1) | State: prior involvement/records support reliance on earlier adjudication or current CINA adjudication | Mother: no evidence of required prior adjudication finding physical/sexual abuse or nonaccidental injury | Court: evidence of prior involvement is inconclusive; no clear and convincing proof of a qualifying prior adjudication, so (1)(d) fails |
| Whether appellate court may affirm on alternative statutory grounds pled but not relied on by juvenile court (e.g., (f) or (h)) | State: appellate court may affirm on any properly pled ground supported by record without cross‑appeal | Mother: due process requires opportunity to respond under expedited briefing rules; cannot affirm on ground juvenile court did not rule on without full briefing | Held: appellate court will not affirm on unruled, alternative grounds under expedited termination briefing unless full briefing allowed; unfair to deny mother opportunity to respond — court declined to affirm on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re AM., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of de novo review and clear‑and‑convincing evidence for TPR appeals)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (interpretation that CINA under § 232.2(6)(b) differs from § 232.2(6)(c)(2) for purposes of (1)(d))
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (affirmed termination under (1)(d) where CINA adjudication in same proceedings was the predicate)
- In re N.H., 383 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1986) (earlier case holding (then‑§ 232.116) allowed termination based on an adjudication in a prior separate proceeding)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (clarifies clear‑and‑convincing standard and child‑safety focus in TPR decisions)