In the Interest of A.L., L.L., P.H., and B.H., Minor Children, H.H., Mother
17-0970
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- DHS removed four children (ages 5–17) after reports Holly and her paramour used methamphetamine while caregiving; youngest child tested positive for meth exposure.
- Juvenile court adjudicated the children CINA in April 2016; they stayed with maternal aunt and uncle throughout the case.
- Holly underwent a substance-abuse evaluation diagnosing amphetamine use disorder but did not complete recommended outpatient treatment and repeatedly denied ongoing drug use.
- Holly had unstable housing and employment, inconsistent visitation, revoked treatment releases, and missed drug testing; DHS and GAL reported lack of candor and minimal progress.
- State petitioned to terminate parental rights in February 2017; juvenile court terminated in June 2017 under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l); Holly appealed challenging statutory grounds and best-interests/need for more time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory ground §232.116(1)(f) (children cannot be returned) was proven | Holly: children could be safely returned; she and partner had housing, employment, and would cooperate with services | State: unresolved substance-abuse and dishonesty made return unsafe; risk of repeat neglect | Held: Affirmed; clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned due to Holly’s unresolved methamphetamine use and lack of candor |
| Whether statutory ground §232.116(1)(l) (parent-child relationship) supported termination | Holly: contests State’s proof under (l) | State: (l) established along with (f); multiple statutory grounds were proven | Held: Court relied on multiple grounds; affirmation requires only one—(f) sufficed |
| Whether termination was contrary to children’s best interests / whether more time should be granted | Holly: children were safe with relatives; a few more months would not harm placement and could enable reunification | DHS/GAL: lack of treatment engagement and denial meant six more months unlikely to resolve risk; permanency needed for children | Held: Affirmed termination; best interests favored permanency given ongoing risk and no expectation of change within additional time |
| Whether appellate court should overturn juvenile court credibility findings | Holly: argues facts like recent housing show changed circumstances | State: juvenile court credibility findings entitled to weight; record supports findings | Held: Appellate court gave deference to credibility determinations and affirmed the juvenile court’s factual conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014) (only one statutory ground needed to affirm termination)
- In re A.M.S., 419 N.W.2d 723 (Iowa 1988) (children cannot be returned where original risk remains)
- In re J.K., 495 N.W.2d 108 (Iowa 1993) (parent’s unresolved substance abuse presents ongoing danger)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (best-interests analysis focuses on safety and need for permanency)
- In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (relative custody does not mandate denial of termination)
- In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (standard of review in child-welfare de novo review)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (appellate deference to juvenile court credibility findings)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (clear-and-convincing proof standard explained)