In the Interest of E.H. and Z.H., Minor Children, A.H., Mother
17-0615
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Mother (Ashley) has a long history of methamphetamine use dating back 17 years; multiple treatment attempts failed or were abandoned.
- Children E.H. and Z.H. were removed from Ashley’s custody in March 2016 and placed with their father, Matthew; parents had separated and later divorced.
- IDHS offered services (substance-abuse testing/treatment, mental-health treatment, assistance with housing and employment); Ashley largely did not engage or failed to complete programs and continued to test positive.
- A stipulated modification of the dissolution decree gave Matthew physical care and conditional graduated visitation to Ashley contingent on sobriety and negative drug tests.
- At the termination hearing Ashley conceded the children could not be returned to her care; she lacked employment, housing, and treatment for mental-health and substance-abuse issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ashley) | Defendant's Argument (State/Child’s Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory ground for termination under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f) was proven | Ashley: State did not meet clear and convincing evidence that children could not be returned | State: Children would face appreciable risk of adjudicatory harm due to Ashley’s unresolved methamphetamine addiction, unemployment, unstable housing, and untreated mental health | Affirmed: § 232.116(1)(f) satisfied; fourth element met — children could not be returned safely |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests under § 232.116(2) | Ashley: Children should wait for her to become stable and reunify | State/Guardian: Children’s safety and need for permanency outweigh mother’s rights given her long-term failure to remedy harms | Affirmed: termination is in children’s best interests |
| Whether court should exercise the permissive exception in § 232.116(3) (e.g., child is in custody of other parent; visitation contingent on sobriety) | Ashley: Father has custody and visitation would be conditioned on sobriety, so termination unnecessary | State/Guardian: § 232.116(3) is permissive; mother’s history shows little likelihood of change and a clean break is needed for children’s stability | Affirmed: court properly declined to apply § 232.116(3) exception |
| Whether de novo review requires reversal | Ashley: appellate review should find insufficient evidence | State: Record supports juvenile court; appellate de novo review still upholds termination based on clear and convincing evidence | Affirmed: de novo review upholds trial court decision |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard and de novo review in termination proceedings)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (three-step statutory framework for termination: statutory grounds, best interests, consideration of § 232.116(3))
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (sufficiency standard where multiple statutory grounds alleged)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (children cannot be returned if they would face adjudicatory harm)
- In re R.M., 431 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (consider what the future holds if children returned to parents)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (permanency cannot be delayed indefinitely while parent attempts to become able to parent)
- In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (consider parent's treatment history to assess likelihood of future sobriety and ability to parent)