In the Interest of A.F., A.M., and A.M., Minor Children, C.F., Mother
17-1230
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Crystal (mother) had three children removed after reports of drug activity, a positive methamphetamine test at Ar.M.’s birth, and domestic violence by the father; children adjudicated CINA and removed in 2015.
- Children were returned to Crystal in October 2015, but DHS later removed them again in July 2016 after unauthorized contact with the father (Cody) and concerns about supervision.
- Crystal engaged in services intermittently, maintained employment and housing at times, but repeatedly relapsed into substance use, missed appointments, and allowed contact with an incarcerated/exiting father raising domestic-violence safety concerns.
- In spring–summer 2017 Crystal’s stability declined (alcohol use after bereavement, missed therapy/visits, missed drug screens); Cody returned in June 2017 and a disturbance occurred at Crystal’s home.
- The State amended a termination petition to include Crystal in June 2017; the juvenile court held a combined permanency and termination hearing July 19–20, 2017 and terminated Crystal’s parental rights to all three children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination exist (Iowa Code § 232.116(1)) | Crystal: she had ceased meth use in Aug 2016, ended relationship with Cody, showed parenting skills and engagement in services | State: ongoing substance abuse, missed visits/screens, safety risks from domestic-violence exposure mean children cannot be returned | Court: Affirmed termination — clear and convincing evidence supports §§ 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (and relied on juvenile court findings) |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests (§ 232.116(2)) | Crystal: she was prepared to meet physical, mental, emotional needs | State: children need permanency after prolonged instability and upheaval | Court: Best interests favor permanency and adoption; children had been in pre-adoptive foster care since Jan 2017; termination affirmed |
| Whether closeness/parent-child bond prevents termination (§ 232.116(3)(c)) | Crystal: close bond with children; termination would be detrimental due to relationship | State: bond does not outweigh harm from continued instability and uncertainty | Court: Although bond exists, continued uncertainty is more detrimental; exception does not apply; termination affirmed |
| Standard of review and weight of juvenile-court findings | Crystal: urges credit to her testimony and progress | State: juvenile-court findings and social-worker testimony show lack of sustained change | Court: de novo review but gives weight to juvenile court; evidence must be clear and convincing — standard met for termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (describing three-step termination analysis under Iowa Code § 232.116)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard and guidance on weighing bond versus inability to meet children’s needs)
- In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (standard for de novo review in child-welfare proceedings)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (clarifying treatment of juvenile-court findings on appeal)