In the Interest of C.E., Minor Child, A.E., Mother
17-0995
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- C.E., born July 2016, was removed from mother Ashley’s care at birth and placed in foster care; he was adjudicated CINA in Sept. 2016 and remained in foster placement for ~11 months before termination hearing.
- Ashley previously had another child removed; a 2015 psychological evaluation by Dr. Jones-Thurman expressed a pessimistic prognosis about Ashley’s parenting and recommended against returning children to her care.
- Two subsequent evaluations produced mixed results: Dr. Ryder (Sept. 2016) concluded nothing indicated Ashley couldn’t successfully parent; Jones-Thurman’s Jan. 2017 reevaluation showed improved stability but still noted cognitive limitations.
- DHS and FSRP workers reported Ashley was inconsistent in attending visits, relied on family for financial/transportation support, lived with parents, moved frequently, and needed continual redirection during supervised visits—staff lacked confidence she could meet C.E.’s needs unsupervised.
- DHS workers initially misunderstood Ashley’s apraxia (a motor speech disorder) as an intellectual disability, but testimony at hearing clarified the concern was Ashley’s observable inability to demonstrate child-care tasks independently, not the speech disorder itself.
- The juvenile court set the permanency goal of adoption, and terminated Ashley’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h); the mother appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence, reasonable efforts, and best interests findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to terminate under §232.116(1)(h) (child <3, CINA, removed ≥6 months, cannot return now) | Ashley: she maintained housing, employment, complied with services; DHS over-relied on 2015 evaluation and mischaracterized apraxia, so child could be returned | State: Ashley remained dependent on parents, unemployed, inconsistent visits, lacked ability to care for child independently; child could not be returned now | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §232.116(1)(h) |
| Whether DHS gave reasonable reunification efforts | Ashley: DHS relied on negative 2015 report and apraxia misconception, denying full reunification opportunities | State: DHS provided services, considered all evaluations, sought to increase interactions, and Ashley did not consistently participate | Affirmed: DHS met reasonable-efforts requirement; Ashley failed to take full advantage of services |
| Impact of 2015 psychological evaluation on case outcome | Ashley: 2015 report unduly colored DHS and court decisions against reunification | State: DHS considered all three evaluations and current observations; 2015 report did not dominate decision-making | Affirmed: court and record show decision based on total record and observed parenting deficits, not solely 2015 report |
| Best interests of the child (per §232.116(2)) | Ashley: termination deprives child of being raised by biological mother | State/Guardian: foster placement provides safe, stable, adoptable home; Ashley unable to retain parenting skills | Affirmed: termination served child’s safety, nurturing, and permanency needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014) (only one statutory ground needed to affirm termination)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (affirming termination where parents remained unable to care after services)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (DHS reasonable-efforts requirement explained)
- In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 2002) (parent may waive reasonable-efforts claim by failing to request services)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (best-interests analysis must follow statutory factors)