In the Interest of C.R. and L.S., Minor Children
21-0630
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- DHS removed C.R. (b.2011) and L.S. (b.2016) in 2018 after drug-use and safety concerns; both adjudicated CINA and have remained out of parental care since removal.
- Mother (A.R.) had inconsistent contact, intermittent incarceration, unstable housing, and ongoing methamphetamine use; multiple positive drug tests including one about a month before the termination hearing.
- Two overnight visits were attempted; one was terminated after mother left children with an unapproved person; another had an unapproved visitor enter the home.
- The children were placed with relatives in separate homes (about 1.5 hours apart); relatives indicated placements were not permanent; DHS identified a potential adoptive home that could keep siblings together.
- Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (f); father’s appeal was dismissed as untimely (petition filed nine days late) and mother’s appeal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s untimely petition warranted a delayed appeal | Father intended to appeal (filed notice); counsel’s tardiness excusable | Father sought delayed appeal based on attorney error, heavy workload, holiday, and staff illness | Dismissed: delay (9 days) not negligible and attorney error alone without extenuating circumstances insufficient; no delayed appeal granted |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 232.116(1)(f) (child cannot be returned) | State: children out >12 of last 18 months, mother had recent positive meth tests and unstable circumstances, so children could not be returned at hearing | Mother: had recent progress and was on road to reunification; argued children could be returned | Affirmed: statutory grounds met under (f); focus is on condition at hearing and recent positive drug test showed mother could not safely have children returned |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests under § 232.116(2) | State: prioritizes children’s safety, need for permanency, stability, and identified adoptive placement keeping siblings together | Mother: bond with C.R. and recent efforts weigh against termination | Affirmed: best interests favor termination—long removal, instability, ongoing substance abuse, L.S. lacks strong bond with mother, potential adoptive home available |
| Whether grounds under § 232.116(1)(e) (failure to maintain significant and meaningful contact) were proved | State: mother’s inconsistent contact, incarceration, and violations of visitation conditions showed failure to maintain significant contact | Mother: disputed lack of meaningful contact and argued improving engagement | Court did not need to rely on (e) because (f) sufficed; record supports State’s position in any event |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521 (Iowa 2019) (standard of review for TPR appeals is de novo)
- In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 2021) (standards and limits for granting delayed appeals in TPR cases)
- In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305 (Iowa 2021) (delayed-appeal precedents and limitations)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 110 (Iowa 2014) (statutory focus on parent’s condition at time of termination hearing)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (parents cannot wait until the eve of termination to begin reunification)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (permanency and the children’s right to stability over parental hope for change)