In the Interest of B.C., Minor Child
22-0149
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- B.C. born February 2020; removed May 2021 after mother used methamphetamine in the child’s presence and the child tested positive; mother stipulated the child was in need of assistance.
- Child placed in foster care, brought up-to-date on pediatric well care, and remained in foster care at the November 23 termination hearing.
- Mother reported last methamphetamine use four days before the hearing, had two substance-abuse evaluations, but had not engaged in recommended treatment during the proceedings; a recent assessment diagnosed severe amphetamine-type use disorder and moderately severe depression.
- Mother was living with the maternal grandmother, working sporadically, and had multiple outstanding arrest warrants that prevented visitation; she stated she would address warrants when she entered treatment.
- At the time of the termination hearing the child had been out of parental custody about seven months, showing some distress when contact with the mother changed; visits were described as both nurturing and disrupted.
- Juvenile court terminated mother's parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h); the mother appealed asserting insufficient evidence that the child could not be returned and that termination was not in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence showed the child could not be returned to mother at the time of the termination hearing | Mother: insufficient evidence that child could not be returned now | State: mother’s ongoing meth use, untreated substance-use disorder, unresolved mental-health issues, and outstanding warrants create adjudicatory harm and prevent safe return | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence child could not be returned under §232.116(1)(h) |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | Mother: termination is not in child’s best interests | State: child needs stability, permanency, and mother made little progress in six-month limitation period | Affirmed: termination is in the child’s best interests to provide stability and predictability |
| Whether the parent–child bond exception (§232.116(3)(c)) precluded termination | Mother: bond with child should prevent termination | State: mother failed to prove the permissive exception applies | Affirmed: mother did not meet burden to establish the exception |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) ("at the present time" standard for returnability in termination proceedings)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (best-interests analysis after statutory grounds are met)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (courts may not delay permanency hoping a parent will improve)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (statutory patience built into chapter 232; six-month limitation for children three or younger)
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (burden on parent to establish permissive bond exception)