In the Interest of A.B., Minor Child, A.D., Mother, J.B., Father, 17-0528

Child A.B., born 2015, was removed in Feb 2016 after parents’ mental-health issues and methamphetamine use; placed with paternal grandmother and adjudicated CINA.
Court-ordered permanency plan required substance-abuse treatment, mental-health therapy, drug screens, and protective measures concerning the parents’ relationship.
Parents had inconsistent participation: father continued meth use through Jan 2017; mother had supervised daily visits but tested positive for methamphetamine in Sept 2016 and delayed a new evaluation until Jan 2017; neither completed recommended services or maintained stable housing/employment.
The mother attempted suicide by overdose while the child was in her care; both parents had ongoing mental-health concerns and inconsistent therapy attendance.
In Dec 2016 the State petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h) and (l); after a Feb 2017 hearing the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights, finding statutory grounds proved, termination in the child’s best interests, and no applicable permissive exceptions.
Parents appealed separately; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed the juvenile court’s termination order.

Issue	Parent(s) Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether statutory ground §232.116(1)(h) was proved (child <3, CINA, removed ≥6 months, cannot be returned)	Mother: A.B. could be returned — daily supervised parenting, plan to live with paternal grandmother, compliance with treatment	State: Parents’ ongoing substance abuse, mental-health problems, lack of independent parenting, and unstable housing/support show child could not be returned	Held: Clear and convincing evidence supports §232.116(1)(h); child could not be returned
Whether termination is in child’s best interests under §232.116(2)	Mother: Reunification plan with paternal grandmother is least restrictive and serves A.B.’s interests	State: Past parental performance (continued substance use, inconsistent therapy, no unsupervised parenting) shows permanency with relative is better for child	Held: Termination is in A.B.’s best interests; child is thriving with paternal grandmother
Whether permissive exceptions §232.116(3) (relative placement or close parent-child bond) preclude termination	Parents: Close bond and placement with a relative weigh against termination	State: Permissive exceptions do not outweigh demonstrated need for permanency given parents’ inability to provide stability	Held: Exceptions do not apply; relative placement and bond do not prohibit termination

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (three-step termination analysis; de novo review principles)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (permissive nature of §232.116(3))
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (importance of timeliness and permanency for children)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (best-interests standard prioritizing child’s safety and long-term nurturing)
In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (children cannot wait for parental improvement)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (past parental performance as indicator of future care)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (use of past performance in best-interests analysis)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (permanency should not be delayed hoping for parental change)
In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170 (Iowa 1997) (relative placement does not necessarily preclude termination)