In the Interest of B.P., Minor Child, D.P., Father
16-1878
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- B.P., born May 2015, was removed from parents’ care in December 2015 and a CINA proceeding began.
- DHS reports the parents were uncooperative; third parties said parents were active methamphetamine users and had not visited the child for a month.
- Father received supervised visitation intermittently, missed treatment appointments and drug tests, was hostile to foster parents and DHS, and had criminal incidents including jail for violating a no-contact order.
- By hearing (Sept–Oct 2016) father had only recently begun substance-abuse treatment, scheduled a future mental-health evaluation, claimed employment and housing but had attended few visits and displayed aggression during visits.
- Juvenile court terminated father’s parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h) and (i); mother’s appeal withdrawn; father appeals termination, denial of six‑month extension, and argues termination is not in child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State’s/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to terminate under §232.116(1)(h)/(i) | Father: he had made sufficient progress (clean tests, employment, housing, services started) so child could be returned | Father’s progress was recent and insufficient; longstanding issues (substance use, instability, criminal history, missed services/visits) remained | Affirmed — evidence clear and convincing to terminate (father’s late, limited progress insufficient) |
| Request for 6‑month extension under §232.104(2)(b) | Father: should be granted additional time to complete treatment, secure housing and evaluations | DHS/juvenile court: extension requires finding causes of removal would be remedied in extension; father’s participation was too recent and inconsistent | Affirmed — court properly denied extension; additional time would not likely allow safe return soon |
| Best interests under §232.116(2) | Father: bond with child and recent improvements favor keeping the relationship | State: child’s safety, need for stable long‑term placement, father’s inconsistent participation, criminal history and inability to meet needs | Affirmed — termination serves child’s safety and need for stable, nurturing placement |
| Exception for parent‑child bond §232.116(3) | Father: strong bond should preclude termination | State: bond present but outweighed by instability, aggression during visits, and greater benefit of stable home | Affirmed — bond insufficient to overcome grounds and best interests concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (de novo review and appellate scope in termination cases)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (clear and convincing evidence required to terminate)
- In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359 (Iowa 2002) (definition of "clear and convincing" and appellate weight to juvenile court findings)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (recent changes close to hearing insufficient to show lasting change)
- In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (best interests of the child is paramount in termination)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (factors for best interests under §232.116(2))
- In re D.G., 704 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (one parent cannot rely on the other parent’s circumstances to avoid termination)
- In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (discretion to apply §232.116(3) exceptions based on child’s best interests)