In the Interest of A.S., Minor Child, A.S., Mother
17-0851
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- Child A.S. (born 2015) was severely sexually assaulted by the father after the mother left the infant in his care while he was intoxicated; father was convicted and imprisoned. Child was removed and placed with maternal grandparents where she has lived since February 2016.
- Mother moved into the grandparents’ home and participated in services; a psychological evaluation placed her intellectual functioning in the mildly intellectually disabled/borderline range with reading/comprehension at about a fourth-grade level and recommended long-term supportive services.
- Service providers tailored interventions and the mother engaged, but DHS, CASA, guardian ad litem, and the juvenile court concluded mother could not safely parent alone and recommended/ordered termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h).
- At the time of the termination hearing the child was thriving with maternal grandparents; grandparents reported mother as primary caregiver in their home and expressed willingness to care for the child long term.
- On de novo appeal the court found termination was not in the child’s best interests given the existing stable placement with relatives, the mother’s bond with the child, and availability of guardianship; it reversed termination as to the mother and remanded to enter guardianship and custody with the maternal grandparents under Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(d)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (State/DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under §232.116(1)(h) was proven (child cannot be returned at present) | Mother: child could not be returned to her alone but she lived with grandparents who safely cared for child; services rendered and more time/alternative services warranted | DHS: mother’s cognitive limitations and failure to appreciate risks (leaving child with intoxicated father, minimizing abuse) show child cannot be returned now; termination appropriate | Court: Clear evidence mother cannot parent alone, satisfying (h), but this alone does not mandate termination given other factors |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests under §232.116(2) | Mother: termination not in best interests — close bond with mother and stable placement with grandparents; guardianship is viable | DHS: long-term safety requires severing parental rights to secure permanency and protection | Court: Best-interest factors weigh against termination; stability with grandparents and bonds favor nontermination |
| Whether exceptions in §232.116(3) preclude termination (relatives’ custody or detriment from severing relationship) | Mother: §232.116(3)(a) and (c) apply because grandparents have legal custody and close parent-child relationship exists | DHS: exceptions inapplicable; permanency requires adoption/termination | Court: Found (a) and (c) applicable and thus termination not required |
| Whether guardianship was an appropriate alternative to termination | Mother: guardianship suitable, preserves parent-child relationship while protecting child | DHS: guardianship less preferable; termination/adoption better for long-term permanency | Court: Guardianship ordered — remanded to transfer custody/guardianship to grandparents under §232.104(2)(d)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standards for termination review and three-part inquiry)
- Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983) (clear-and-convincing evidence explained)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (parental mental limitations relevant to child safety but not dispositive)
- In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2001) (best-interest framework in juvenile proceedings)
- In re L.M.F., 490 N.W.2d 66 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (guardianship is not legally preferable to termination as general rule)
- Wardle v. Wardle, 207 N.W.2d 554 (Iowa 1973) (parental disability as contributing factor to inability to parent)