In the Interest of B.W., M.W., and G.O., Minor Children, A.W., Mother, I.W., Father of B.W. and M.W., J.O., Father of G.O.
17-0242
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 17, 2017Background
- Three children (B.W. b.2005, M.W. b.2007, G.O. b.2008). April is mother of all; Ira is father of B.W. and M.W.; Joshua (J.O.) is father of G.O.
- Iowa DHS involved since 2007 with 15 investigations; adjudication as children in need of assistance in 2012 for physical abuse and inadequate supervision.
- Children removed in April 2013; briefly returned; removed again in Sept. 2015 after methamphetamine use in the home; placed in foster care/PMIC for B.W.
- Parents offered extensive services (substance treatment, counseling, parenting education, drug testing, home-cleaning requirement); sporadic improvement but recurrent regression and inability to maintain required clean home or sustained progress.
- At termination hearing (late 2016): some recent clean drug tests and therapeutic progress but children still could not be safely returned; Ira had long prior absence, mental-health issues, and limited engagement; B.W. has severe mental-health needs and is unlikely adoptable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory ground under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f) is met for April and Joshua (child cannot be returned) | April/Joshua: recent progress (clean tests, therapy, improved home) shows children could be returned | State: persistent history of relapse, unsafe home conditions, and failure to achieve home visits; long-term pattern shows insufficient sustained improvement | Held: §232.116(1)(f) satisfied; children could not be returned due to lack of sustained progress and failure to meet home requirements |
| Whether statutory ground under §232.116(1)(f) is met for Ira | Ira: disputes sufficiency; claims lack of reasonable efforts by DHS hindered reunification | State: Ira was largely absent historically, failed to show effort to remediate parenting limitations, and had inconsistent visitation and resources | Held: §232.116(1)(f) satisfied for Ira; reasonable efforts requirement met and Ira failed to show requisite engagement |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Parents: especially for B.W., special needs favor retention of parental rights and family-based care | State: children need permanency; parents’ history shows inability to provide stable long-term care; delay would harm children | Held: Termination is in children’s best interests to allow expeditious permanency |
| Whether Ira should be granted a six‑month extension under §232.104(2)(b) | Ira: requests extension, argues lack of DHS efforts and compares to cases where extensions granted | State: Ira has not shown specific, likely changes or prior efforts; not analogous to cases where DHS prevented involvement | Held: Denied; Ira failed to identify specific, demonstrable changes likely in six months |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review and termination framework)
- In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (termination law principles)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (multiple statutory grounds: any single ground suffices)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (child cannot be returned if doing so would create new CINA adjudication)
- In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (same principle regarding return creating CINA)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (reasonable-efforts requirement and parent duty to act)
- In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (parental responsibility to make efforts toward reunification)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (need for expeditious permanency once ground proved)