956 N.W.2d 162
Iowa2021Background:
- Two children (ages 2 and 4) were removed from parental care in Oct 2018 after safety and supervision concerns; DHS placed them with relatives/foster care and provided reunification services.
- Mother had a long history of mental-health complaints, inconsistent therapy/medication compliance, no driver’s license or stable employment, and repeated supervised-visit safety lapses (e.g., leaving children unattended, permitting choking hazards).
- Father progressed to unsupervised visits and showed improved parenting; Mother remained at supervised visits and did not demonstrate ability to parent alone.
- Termination petition filed Nov 22, 2019; multiple continuances followed (some for counsel, some at parties’ request); COVID-19 caused a period of video visits and contributed to scheduling challenges.
- Juvenile court held a telephonic termination hearing July 23, 2020 (an interpreter was ultimately provided); court found clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to Mother and terminated her parental rights.
- Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed; one judge dissented citing COVID-19’s effect on Mother’s ability to demonstrate parenting skills. Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children could be returned to Mother at time of hearing (Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f),(h)) | DHS: Mother still unable to safely supervise or meet children’s needs despite long services; termination warranted | Mother: She improved and could parent if given more time; pandemic constrained demonstration | Held: Children could not be returned; clear and convincing evidence supported termination. |
| Whether COVID-19 prevented fair opportunity to reunify and required further continuance or in-person hearing | Mother: Pandemic and video visits limited ability to show sustained independent parenting; in-person hearing needed for fairness/interpreter use | DHS: Mother had nearly two years and numerous pre-pandemic problems; delays were not solely COVID-related; telephonic hearing was within court’s discretion | Held: Pandemic did not alter outcome; court permissibly denied further continuance and proceeded telephonically. |
| Whether the parent-child bond exception (Iowa Code §232.116(3)(c)) barred termination | Mother: A bond exists and terminating would harm the children | DHS: Any bond is insufficient to show termination would be detrimental at time of hearing | Held: Exception not met; bond did not preclude termination. |
| Whether procedural fairness required an in-person hearing or denial of interpreter was reversible error | Mother: Needed in-person appearance and interpreter to participate fully | DHS: Court provided remote accommodations and an interpreter at hearing; space/social-distancing concerns justified remote proceeding | Held: No reversible error; mother was able to participate and telephonic hearing was a proper exercise of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (review standard and statutory time limits for reunification)
- In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157 (Iowa 2020) (de novo review and child’s best interests focus)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (termination upheld where parent could not care without DHS involvement)
- In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518 (Iowa 2020) (child’s interests take precedence over reunification; juvenile law not fault-based)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (bond exception requires clear and convincing evidence that termination would be detrimental)
- In re M.D., 921 N.W.2d 229 (Iowa 2018) (process due is flexible; remote participation may be allowed)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (urgency and limits on continuances to protect children’s interests)