In the Interest of B.R., Minor Child, D.R., Father, 17-1412

Background

Child B.R., age two at the termination hearing, was adjudicated CINA and removed from parental custody; father appealed termination of his parental rights.
Juvenile court terminated father's rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h); appellate court addresses § 232.116(1)(h) (child age three or under removed for six of last 12 months and cannot be returned at time of hearing).
Father was incarcerated throughout proceedings with a tentative discharge date in 2023 and first parole hearing not earlier than May 9, 2018; thus he conceded he could not resume custody at the hearing.
Court found father had significant criminal history (domestic assaults, weapons, theft, burglary), ongoing substance abuse, refusal to engage in offered services (visitation, drug testing, treatment, DV counseling), and a violent relationship with the mother.
Child had been placed with the same relative caretakers, was adoptable and integrated into that home; juvenile court found returning the child would pose ongoing risk of harm and that parents had not remedied conditions leading to removal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved § 232.116(1)(h)(4): child cannot be returned at time of hearing	State: father incarcerated, history of violence/substance abuse, unwilling to engage in services — child cannot be returned	Father: challenges proof of element four but concedes incarceration; argues possibility of parole if given more time	Held: Affirmed; clear and convincing evidence father could not safely have custody at the hearing (incarceration plus risk factors)
Whether father was entitled to additional time before termination	Father: possible parole could allow reunification if court granted more time	State: child needs permanency; statutory time limits control; additional delay harms child	Held: Not preserved (father did not request additional time); even on merits, additional time denied—child’s need for permanency outweighs speculative parental improvement
Whether termination was contrary to child’s best interests due to parent-child bond (Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c))	Father: argues bond with parents would make termination detrimental	State: child's relationship with father minimal; bond not substantial	Held: Exception in § 232.116(3)(c) does not apply; termination is in child’s best interests
Whether father could challenge denial of visitation during dispositional proceedings	Father: claims he was denied visitation while incarcerated	State: denial was in a final dispositional order; must have been appealed earlier	Held: Issue not preserved because father did not appeal dispositional order; cannot raise it in termination appeal

Key Cases Cited

In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (de novo review standard and definition of “at the present time” for termination under § 232.116(1)(h))
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (appellate court may affirm termination on any ground supported by clear and convincing evidence)
In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (probable harm need not be same as initial removal grounds)
Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (preservation of error requires issues be raised and decided in district court)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (courts should not delay permanence for children on hope parents will improve)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (child’s safety and need for a permanent home are defining elements of best interest)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (statutory time periods for reunification reflect legislative judgment balancing parental remediation and child’s need for permanence)
In re M.W., 458 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 1990) (legislature made categorical determinations concerning termination when statutory conditions met)
In re C.S., 776 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (rights and needs of child may supersede those of parent when statutory conditions are satisfied)