In the Interest of D.G. and D.G., Minor Children, R.G., Father, W.H., Mother, 16-1338

Two minor children (D.G. and D.G.) were removed after the younger tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine at birth; children placed with relatives.
Parents have long histories with Iowa DHS for substance abuse; mother previously had parental rights terminated to four other children for cocaine and meth use.
At the termination hearing both parents continued to test positive for methamphetamine; father appeared in court under the influence of alcohol and denied drug use despite positive tests.
Parents did not engage in offered parenting services and failed to demonstrate ability to provide appropriate supervision or care by the time of the hearing.
District court terminated mother’s rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g) and (h) and father’s rights under § 232.116(1)(h); both appealed.
On de novo review the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned at the time of the termination hearing and permanency favored termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was supported under § 232.116(1)(h) (children could not be returned "at the present time")	State: parents’ ongoing substance abuse and failure to remedy issues made return impossible	Parents: sought continued time/reunification; father argued closeness of relationship	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 232.116(1)(h)
Whether father was entitled to an additional six months under § 232.104(2)(b)	Father: requested more time to attempt reunification	State: father’s past performance and continued use showed basis for removal would persist	Denied: court properly found the statutory requirement for additional time not met
Whether the closeness of parent-child relationship (§ 232.116(3)(c)) required preserving father’s rights	Father: asserted close bond with children made termination detrimental	State: child’s need for permanence and father’s inability to care outweighed any bond	Not applied: court declined to exercise permissive exception; bond did not overcome risk and need for permanency
Procedural/other challenges by mother	Mother: raised six challenges on appeal (not argued)	State: contended issues waived for lack of argument	Waived: mother failed to brief or support issues and therefore forfeited them

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review and three-step termination analysis)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (meaning of "at the present time" and de novo review guidance)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (affirmation may rest on any one statutory ground)
In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (children cannot be returned if they remain in need of assistance or at risk)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (overruling context cited for scope of juvenile adjudications)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (past parental performance informs likelihood of future care)
In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (treatment history is critical in assessing a parent’s ability to overcome addiction)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (permissive closeness-of-relationship exception requires showing termination would be detrimental)