In the Interest of C.H., Minor Child, A.H.S., Mother
17-0437
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- Child C.H., born 2011, was removed from mother’s care after DHS involvement beginning April 2014; mother has a long history of substance abuse (marijuana, methamphetamine, prescription pain medication).
- At the February 2017 termination hearing mother still tested positive for drugs, admitted recent methamphetamine use (last used Dec. 30, 2016), had not completed substance-abuse treatment, lacked stable housing and employment.
- C.H. had been out of mother’s care for ~22 months and DHS had been involved ~33 months at the time of the hearing.
- Foster family provides structure, is bonded with C.H., and intends to adopt; C.H. has special needs and receives multiple services (e.g., speech therapy) and has thrived in foster care.
- Juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (f); mother appeals, arguing (1) C.H. could have been returned at the time of the hearing (challenging § 232.116(1)(f) subsection (4)), (2) she should have received an additional six months for reunification, and (3) termination is not in the child’s best interests and the parent-child bond weighs against termination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 232.116(1)(f) (child could not be returned at hearing) | Mother: C.H. could be returned because some service/visit deficiencies were due to FSRP provider; she contends returnability element not met. | State: Mother continued active substance use, lacked treatment completion, housing, employment; thus child could not be returned. | Court: Affirmed—clear and convincing evidence C.H. could not be returned due to mother’s ongoing substance abuse, instability, and lack of resources. |
| Whether an additional six-month extension for reunification should have been granted under § 232.104(2)(b) | Mother: Missed services/visits (July–Sept 2016) justified more time because provider failures impeded progress. | State: Mother was given extra time and visits, but failed to address core problems (substance abuse, mental health); extension would not resolve removal reasons. | Court: Denied—mother failed to show circumstances would be remedied within six months; continued substance use and nonengagement foreclosed extension. |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests under § 232.116(2) | Mother: Bond with child and parental love weigh against termination; permanency could be achieved without severing rights. | State: Child’s safety and need for a stable, permanent home outweigh parental bond; foster family provides needed structure and intends to adopt. | Court: Held termination is in C.H.’s best interests—need for permanency and stability outweigh bond. |
| Whether permissive factor (strength of parent–child bond) under § 232.116(3)(c) precludes termination | Mother: Strong bond should weigh against termination. | State: Although bond exists, mother cannot provide consistent care or meet child’s special needs; bond does not preclude termination. | Court: Permissive factor did not prevent termination—bond insufficient to overcome child’s need for permanence and mother’s unresolved issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review for termination proceedings is de novo)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (if either statutory ground is supported by clear and convincing evidence, termination may be affirmed)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (court may decline to delay action when parent fails to raise timely objections to service deficiencies; emphasis on child’s need for permanency)
- 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 analysis)