In the Interest of B.L. and A.L., Minor Children, State of Iowa
16-0878
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Children A.C., B.L., and A.L. were removed after an investigation found Cole sexually abused his stepdaughter A.C.; children were placed with relatives and then paternal grandparents.
- DHS safety plan required no unsupervised contact between Cole and the children; parents violated the plan and later had uneven engagement with therapy and refused releases for treatment records until court order.
- DHS and providers expressed continuing safety concerns: Cole had a founded sexual-abuse assessment and had not completed a sex-offense evaluation or sustained treatment; Tabitha (mother) did not accept A.C.’s disclosure and maintained a relationship with Cole.
- Therapists and DHS recommended continued out-of-home placement and further services; DHS proposed changing the permanency goal to termination of parental rights due to lack of meaningful participation.
- At the permanency hearing the juvenile court ordered reunification: B.L. to father (Cole) and A.L. to mother (Tabitha), with any contact between Cole and A.L. to be professionally supervised; State and GAL appealed and the supreme court stayed the return pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | State/GAL Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court properly returned children to parents at permanency hearing despite ongoing safety concerns | Return was premature; safety concerns and lack of parental engagement in required treatment remained, so court should have extended placement or sought TPR | Parents argued they had engaged in some services, intended to comply with court restrictions (e.g., supervised contact), and family reunification was appropriate | Reversed: return was improper because purposes of dispositional order were not accomplished and safety concerns persisted; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether termination of dispositional order (return) is authorized when supervision/treatment needs continue | Court should not terminate dispositional order unless its purposes accomplished; State urged extension or TPR instead | Parents sought reunification and more time to complete services | Held that dispositional order cannot be terminated where supervision/treatment remains necessary; court must consider six‑month extension or TPR under §232.104(2) |
| Whether the juvenile court’s limited restrictions (professional supervision for Cole with A.L.) were sufficient to protect children | Supervision restrictions insufficient given parents’ history of violating safety plan and lack of demonstrated progress | Parents said they could comply with supervised‑contact conditions and could separate if required | Court of appeals concluded the record did not support returning children under these limited conditions; parents’ assurances were inadequate |
| Whether the juvenile court needed to specify conditions or behavioral changes if it extended placement six months | State/GAL argued any extension must enumerate specific factors for reunification within six months | Parents wanted additional time without onerous specified benchmarks | Remanded: if court orders six‑month extension it must list specific factors/conditions/behavioral changes required under §232.104(2)(b); otherwise direct TPR or transfer under §232.104(2)(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 2014) (de novo review standard and focus on child’s best interests)
- In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2001) (juvenile court may only terminate dispositional order when purposes are accomplished)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (parent’s past performance is indicative of future care)
- In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743 (Iowa 1981) (State’s parens patriae duty to protect children when parents abdicate responsibility)