In the Interest of A.I., Minor Child, E.A., Mother
16-1738
| Iowa Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Mother has six children; parental rights to some older children were previously terminated or placed with relatives; father of A.I. is deceased.
- DHS became involved April 2015 after a drug task-force raid found methamphetamine and marijuana accessible to the children; a founded abuse assessment for lack of supervision followed.
- A.I. (born 2005) and siblings, including C.O., were removed June 2015 due to parents’ substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental-health concerns; A.I. is placed with two half-siblings in family foster care.
- Mother made intermittent progress (treatment, employment, some visits) but repeatedly relapsed on methamphetamine, missed drug screens, had unstable housing, and maintained an unhealthy relationship with C.O.’s father, including incidents of domestic violence.
- At the termination hearing for A.I., mother had some stability but DHS and service providers remained concerned she would not protect A.I.; A.I. shares a strong bond with the mother and with sibling C.O., and expressed not wanting termination but also wished to stay with foster family.
- Juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights to A.I. under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f) and (g); appellate court conducted de novo review and affirmed termination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proved by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: State failed to prove statutory grounds (insufficient evidence of long-term harm/condition) | State: Mother’s repeated substance abuse, instability, and domestic-violence risk meet § 232.116(1)(f)/(g) | Affirmed — grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | Mother: Bond with child and child’s expressed wishes weigh against termination | State: Child needs permanency; mother’s history shows ongoing risk and inability to provide stable care | Affirmed — termination is in child’s best interests |
| Whether mother’s bond with A.I. precludes termination | Mother: Strong parent-child bond should preclude termination | State: Bond does not outweigh safety and permanency concerns; relationship resembled more a friendship per DHS | Held — bond does not preclude termination |
| Whether court should grant additional six months for reunification | Mother: Additional time would allow continued progress toward reunification | State: Given mother’s pattern, removal need would likely remain after six months | Held — court properly denied additional six months |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of appellate review in TPR cases and weight to juvenile court findings)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (credibility and weight of juvenile court fact findings)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (affirmance may rest on any statutory ground proved)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (primary consideration in TPR is best interests of the child)