In the Interest of E.M., Minor Child, I.M., Mother, 17-0290

E.M., born May 2016, is the mother's fifth child; mother has ongoing DHS involvement since 2008–2009.
Mother has prior terminations of parental rights to two older children; two others are under guardianship with maternal grandmother.
Mother used marijuana and cocaine during pregnancy; child was temporarily removed at birth and mother concealed the child for ~two weeks before DHS located him.
Child was adjudicated CINA in June 2016 and removed from mother’s custody in May 2016; no trial home placements occurred.
Mother has long-standing criminal, substance‑abuse, and mental‑health issues, unstable housing/employment, intermittent jail, and inconsistent participation in treatment and visitation.
Juvenile court terminated parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h); mother appealed, arguing the State failed to meet the statutory standard and termination was not in the child’s best interests or that she should have been given more time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory grounds for termination under § 232.116(1)(h) were proved by clear and convincing evidence	Mother: State did not prove the statutory elements for termination	State: Child is ≤3, adjudicated CINA, removed for ≥6 months, cannot be returned to mother	Affirmed: Elements satisfied; termination proper under § 232.116(1)(h)
Whether termination is in the child’s best interests under § 232.116(2)	Mother: She loves child and seeks reunification; more time could enable stability	State: Mother’s history and inconsistent engagement show long‑term risk; child needs permanency	Affirmed: Termination is in child’s best interests due to need for stability
Whether mother should have been granted a six‑month extension under § 232.104(2)(b)	Mother: Court should have given additional time to remedy issues	State: Ongoing instability and lack of treatment engagement make reunification unlikely within six months	Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion; record does not show removal need would end in six months
Whether termination improperly relied on abandonment under § 232.116(1)(b)	Mother: Trial court erred if it based termination on abandonment/desertion	State: Court terminated under (1)(h), not (1)(b)	Affirmed: Termination was based on § 232.116(1)(h), not (1)(b)

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standards for de novo review and weight given juvenile court credibility findings)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (review principles in TPR cases)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (best‑interests primary consideration in TPR)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (parent’s past performance as predictor of future care)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (urgency and permanency considerations in TPR proceedings)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (children should not be made to wait indefinitely for parental stability)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (limits on delaying permanency for parental improvement)
In re C.S., 776 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (children’s rights and needs can outweigh parental rights)