In the Interest of B.T., Minor Child, A.P., Mother
894 N.W.2d 29
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (born 1989) has long history of substance abuse with multiple relapses since child B.T.'s birth in 2006; maternal grandmother has repeatedly cared for the child during relapses.
- Child placed in grandmother's care and became a CINA after mother's 2015 heroin use; DHS supervised placement and offered reunification services.
- DHS recommended termination by July–October 2016; mother requested extension but court ordered State to file termination petition; mother was briefly incarcerated then entered residential treatment and was making progress at the November 2016 termination hearing.
- At the TPR hearing mother admitted the child could not be returned immediately, asked instead that grandmother be appointed guardian; grandmother supported reunification if mother maintained sobriety but was willing to serve as permanent caregiver.
- Juvenile court terminated mother's parental rights, concluding (1) grandmother could adopt and provide permanency, (2) child should not wait for mother to complete treatment, and (3) mother's treatment completion did not predict continued sobriety.
- On appeal the court conducted de novo review and concluded termination was not in the child’s best interests; remanded with directions to transfer guardianship and custody to the grandmother instead of terminating parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | State/DHS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of mother's parental rights was required despite established grounds | Mother: guardianship to grandmother provides permanency while preserving chance of reunification; TPR not in child's best interests given close bond and stable caregiver | State/DHS: TPR necessary to secure permanent, stable placement; mother’s history of relapse and instability makes adoption preferable | Court: Reversed — TPR not in child’s best interests; transfer guardianship to grandmother under §232.104(2)(d)(1) and review annually |
| Whether statutory exceptions to termination under Iowa Code §232.116(3) apply | Mother: §232.116(3)(a) (relative custody) and (c) (detriment from severing parent–child bond) apply to negate need for TPR | State/DHS: Exceptions inapplicable; permanency requires adoption/TPR | Court: Found both (a) and (c) applicable and dispositive |
| Whether placement with grandmother as guardian is sufficiently permanent compared to adoption | Mother: placement with grandmother is stable and allows reunification if mother regains sobriety; no practical placement change | State/DHS: Adoption by grandmother gives greater permanency and finality | Court: Placement with grandmother as guardian is sufficiently permanent here; guardianship preserves protection and potential reunification |
| Procedural sufficiency of TPR hearing evidence | Mother: insufficient record to justify termination given lack of testimony from DHS and absence of on-record advocacy by guardian ad litem | State/DHS: Hearing relied on DHS report and mother's history/treatment progress | Court: Noted limited hearing record; on de novo review found evidence supported guardianship rather than TPR |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (de novo review standard in TPR appeals)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (framework for applying §232.116 exceptions)
- In re L.M.F., 490 N.W.2d 66 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (permanency orders generally disfavored compared to TPR)
- In re M.W., 458 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 1990) (discussion of statutory emphasis on termination in certain cases)
- In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2001) (best-interests standard in juvenile proceedings)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (§232.116(3) exceptions including relative custody and detriment from severing bond)
- In re S.J., 451 N.W.2d 827 (Iowa 1990) (termination as last resort)