In the Interest of A.E. and J.E., Minor Children, S.E., Mother, J.E., Father
16-1429
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- Two children, A.E. (b. 2012) and J.E. (b. 2010), were removed from parents S.E. (mother) and J.E. (father) in September 2014 after DHS found unsanitary home conditions, evidence of domestic abuse, and supervisory neglect; parents had chronic problems paying rent/utilities.
- The family received services; the two half‑siblings were returned in December 2015, but A.E. and J.E. stayed in foster care with two different foster families; parents had regular visitation.
- Father resisted services, failed to implement parenting skills, and testified he would struggle to care for all children if they were returned to him.
- Mother left the marital home six weeks before the termination hearing and moved to a domestic violence shelter; she had not secured permanent housing by the hearing and previously had returned to the father after separations.
- DHS caseworker expressed concerns about parents’ honesty and the stability of the parents’ relationship; the children exhibited behavioral issues but were considered adoptable.
- Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (h); parents separately appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate under §§ 232.116(1)(f) and (h) | Mother: Six weeks separated shows changed circumstances; termination unnecessary. Father: He asserts parental rights and warns against rush to sever. | State: Longstanding inability to provide safe home, father’s resistance to services, mother’s instability and brief separation insufficient. | Affirmed: Clear and convincing evidence supports termination under (f) and (h). |
| Whether children could be returned to parents’ care | Mother: Seeks time, argues no adoptive home yet and wants more opportunity to reunify. Father: Claims fundamental parental right and requests more time. | State: Returning would expose children to appreciable risk of harm; parents failed to remediate issues over two years. | Affirmed: Return now or after six more months would risk adjudicatory harm; children cannot be returned. |
| Best interests of the children | Mother/Father: Maintain bond and parental relationship; argue disruption harms children. | State: Stability, permanency, and adoptability favor termination; parents failed to change. | Affirmed: Termination is in children’s best interests to provide stability and permanency. |
| Application of statutory exception for parent‑child bond (Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)) | Father: Strong bond with children should preclude termination. | State: While bond exists, potential emotional stress from termination is outweighed by need for stability and safe permanent home. | Affirmed: Court declined to apply the exception; bond did not outweigh best interests/risks. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (de novo review and standards in termination proceedings)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (clear and convincing evidence standard for termination)
- In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359 (Iowa 2002) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (appellate deference to juvenile court findings)
- In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (paramount concern is best interests of the child)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (affirmance requires only one statutory ground)
- In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (discretion to apply exceptions in § 232.116(3))