In the Interest of C.H. and F.H., Minor Children, C.H., Father
16-2179
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- Children C.H. (b. 2011) and F.H. (b. 2013) were removed from parental care in April 2015 after reports of methamphetamine use and domestic violence between parents Chad and Ashley.
- A civil protective order initially placed the children temporarily with Ashley; DHS later placed them with paternal grandmother Leann, then in foster care after safety concerns.
- Chad has an extensive criminal history, periods of incarceration, probation, sporadic engagement in therapy, refused domestic-violence treatment, and continued contact/controlling behavior toward Ashley despite court admonitions.
- Chad maintained supervised visitation but did not progress to unsupervised visits; service providers reported Chad coached the child, made inappropriate remarks to workers, and displayed controlling/manipulative conduct.
- The State filed to terminate parental rights; the juvenile court terminated Chad’s rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f) (for C.H.) and (1)(h) (for F.H.). Chad appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Chad) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children were "removed from the physical custody of the parents" under §232.116(1)(f)/(h) | Children were removed from Chad when DHS placed them with relatives in April 2015, satisfying removal requirement | No removal as to Chad because a protective order initially placed children with Ashley; C.F.-H. requires a dynamic change | Held: Removal requirement satisfied; removal from either parent suffices and children were away from Chad ~20 months |
| Whether children could be returned to Chad at hearing (safety/need) | Children could not be returned due to Chad’s unaddressed domestic-violence risk, inconsistent therapy, controlling behavior, and recent drug use | Chad had stable housing/employment, was on probation, and exercised parenting during supervised visits | Held: Children could not be safely returned; termination statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests under §232.116(2) | Termination is required to protect children’s safety and long-term stability given Chad’s history and lack of insight | Bond between Chad and children favors preserving relationship | Held: Termination is in children’s best interests despite bonding evidence |
| Whether permissive factors (§232.116(3)(a),(c)) should save parental rights | Factors are discretionary; closeness of bond or relative placement could weigh against termination | Chad argued closeness of bond and possible placement with Leann should prevent termination | Held: Court declined to apply permissive factors — bond did not overcome safety concerns; custody was with DHS (not Leann) at termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F.-H., 889 N.W.2d 201 (Iowa 2016) (construing "removal" requirement and noting removal involves a dynamic change)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review for termination cases)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explained)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (best-interest framework for termination decisions)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (past parental performance informs long-range best interests)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (permissive relative-custody factor analysis)