In the Interest of C.B. and C.B., Minor Children, 21-0814

Background:

Two children (born 2012 and 2015) were removed January 15, 2020 after the father used methamphetamine while caring for them and meth was found in the home; the children were later placed with a maternal aunt and uncle who became licensed foster parents.
Children were adjudicated CINA; they disclosed physical abuse, had severe dental decay requiring extensive treatment, and received mental-health diagnoses (older: generalized anxiety; younger: ADHD).
Father repeatedly failed to complete substance-abuse treatment, had long periods without contact with DHS or the children, and attended few visits. Mother entered a methadone program but had poor attendance, tested positive for methamphetamine, and was discharged; she was inconsistent in visitation and unlocatable at times.
Termination petition filed January 13, 2021; hearing held February 17, 2021; district court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f) and (l) in an order filed May 31, 2021, finding continuing substance abuse, lack of housing, and no mental-health treatment.
Both parents filed notices of appeal; their petitions on appeal were each three days late. Citing In re A.B., the court allowed the delayed petitions because the parents intended to appeal, counsel accepted responsibility, and the delay was negligible.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of petitions on appeal	Appeals were untimely under Iowa R. App. P. and should not be perfected	Parents (A.P., Z.B.): intended to appeal; counsel error; three-day delay negligible	Court allowed delayed petitions under In re A.B. standard (intent to appeal, outside parent’s control, negligible delay)
Sufficiency to terminate mother under §232.116(1)(f) (safe return)	State: clear and convincing evidence mother still had active substance use, failed treatment, lacked housing and mental-health evaluation; children could not be safely returned	A.P.: challenged sufficiency; argued she was participating and should get more time	Court affirmed termination of mother under §232.116(1)(f); children could not be safely returned at hearing time
Extension for reunification for mother under §232.104(2)(b)	State: conditions would not improve, extension would not resolve need for removal	A.P.: requested six-month extension; claimed participation and minimal child disruption	Court denied extension — unlikely need for removal would end in six months; not in children’s best interests
Termination of father’s rights; guardianship and closeness exception (§232.116(3)(c))	State: termination preferable for permanency; guardianship less stable; father lacked stability due to ongoing substance issues	Z.B.: preferred guardianship with maternal aunt/uncle to preserve stability and parent-child contact; invoked closeness exception	Court affirmed termination of father; guardianship insufficient for permanency and closeness exception declined due to inconsistent contact and weak parental bond

Key Cases Cited

In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 2021) (allows delayed petition on appeal in termination cases where parent intended to appeal, failure was outside parent’s control, and delay is negligible)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (focus on whether child can be safely returned at termination hearing under §232.116(1)(f))
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (best interests analysis emphasizes permanency and child safety over speculative parental improvement)
In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305 (Iowa 2021) (guardianship not a legally preferable alternative to termination for providing permanency)
In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (discusses limits of guardianship for long-term stability)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (standard for proof in termination proceedings: clear and convincing evidence)