In the Interest of A.R. and A.R., Minor Children
932 N.W.2d 588
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Two daughters (then ages 12 and 10 at CINA adjudication) were removed after police found methamphetamine and paraphernalia in Amanda’s home; DHS involved for ~4 years.
- Amanda completed treatment in 2016 but repeatedly relapsed on methamphetamine in 2017–2018 and struggled with untreated mental-health symptoms (hospitalized March 2018); the children were placed in the same foster home from Sept. 2017.
- Legal custody briefly returned to Amanda in Jan. 2017 subject to a DHS plan requiring a substance-free home and stable mental health; Amanda failed to maintain sobriety and stability.
- By Sept. 2018 the State filed petitions to terminate Amanda’s parental rights; termination hearing held Nov. 8, 2018; juvenile court terminated under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f).
- Both girls (mid‑teens at hearing) testified in chambers and objected to termination, but also expressed attachment to and willingness to remain with their foster parents and to be adopted.
- Juvenile court found statutory grounds and best interests proved, considered §232.116(3)(b) (child over ten objects), but concluded the children’s objection did not outweigh their need for stability and permanency; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court erred by terminating mother’s parental rights despite children’s objection under Iowa Code §232.116(3)(b) | Amanda: children oppose termination; factor should favor preserving parent-child relationship because she was more stable at hearing and maintains contact | State/GAL: statutory ground and best interests are met; children’s preferences are relevant but permissive and do not outweigh need for permanency and stability | Court: Affirmed termination—§232.116(3)(b) is permissive; children’s objection did not require denial of termination given mother’s history of substance abuse and mental-health instability and lengthy DHS involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (sets three-step termination analysis)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (§232.116(3) factors are permissive; court may exercise discretion)
- In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (factors in §232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory)
- In re Marriage of Ellerbroek, 377 N.W.2d 257 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985) (children’s custody preferences are relevant but not controlling)