In the Interest of B.T. and B.T., Minor Children
22-0156
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2022Background:
- Two minor children were adjudicated in need of assistance and placed in foster care in May 2019; they remained in DHS custody through the proceedings.
- Father had a long history of alcohol abuse; providers observed him intoxicated during visits, including being passed out with an empty beer bottle while the children were present (June 2021).
- Father engaged in treatment, AA, and therapy; by the January 2022 termination hearing he had about 120 days sobriety, a safe home, and improved engagement during visits.
- Despite improvements, visits remained fully supervised and limited (one 1.5-hour weekly session) throughout the case, and the parent–child bond was not shown to be close.
- Juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f), citing the children’s need for permanency and concern that the father’s short-term sobriety was insufficient given his long history of abuse; the father appealed.
- Father did not request an extension of time for reunification before trial; the claim was not preserved for appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 232.116(1)(f) was proven — could the children be returned "at the present time" given ~120 days sobriety? | Long history of alcohol abuse, past intoxication around the children, and risk of relapse support termination and permanency needs. | Recent sobriety and compliance with treatment show he can safely parent now; insufficient nexus proven. | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned at the time of hearing. |
| Whether the statutory exception for a close parent–child relationship (§ 232.116(3)(c)) applies | Exception not shown — visits do not demonstrate a close bonded relationship warranting denial of termination. | The children enjoyed visits; closeness exception should preclude termination. | Denied: father bore burden and did not prove a close, detrimental-to-terminate relationship. |
| Whether lack of an explicit nexus between substance use and adjudicatory harm defeats termination | Past observations of intoxication during visits (including with children present) establish the requisite nexus and probable harm. | Mere past use without present impairment is insufficient; cites precedent differentiating cannabis cases. | Rejected: this case differs from drug-use cases where no impairment around the child was shown; nexus here established. |
| Whether an extension for reunification should have been granted | State noted permanency concerns and uncertain prognosis; no extension was requested below. | Father argued on appeal he should have been given six more months to reunify. | Not preserved: father never requested an extension at trial, so appellate review is precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (last-minute efforts after a long history of problems are often insufficient)
- In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311 (Iowa 2022) (three-step framework for reviewing termination: statutory ground, best interests, exceptions)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (issues not contested on appeal need not be discussed)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) ("at the present time" means at the termination hearing)
- In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (mere substance use does not automatically establish adjudicatory harm; nexus required)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (probable harm and threat of harm can justify termination)
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (parent resisting termination bears burden to prove statutory exceptions)
- In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (parent must request additional services prior to termination hearing if seeking them)