In the Interest of F.W., H.W., C.W., and B.W., Minor Children
21-0192
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 4, 2021Background
- DHS opened a case after a fifth child, Co.W., was found with widespread injuries and malnutrition; the court found Co.W. suffered "horrific and systematic abuse rising to the level of torture." Both parents were later convicted for crimes related to that abuse and relinquished their rights to Co.W.
- The proceedings here concern termination of both parents’ rights to four other children (born 2007–2012); termination was sought under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f).
- The father is serving an indeterminate 30-year sentence; recorded prison calls showed he had not accepted the full scope of harm he caused. The juvenile court concluded he could not provide safety or permanency.
- The mother had some employment and therapy engagement but lived with an adult daughter and her family (who had been denied foster licensing), had intermittent work capacity, and had not shown sufficient, non-passive acknowledgment of her role in the abuse; some children reported the mother’s active abuse.
- Two older children (over ten) expressed a desire to return to the mother; no evidence of a close bond between the children and the father was presented. The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights and this court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether terminating the father’s rights was in the children’s best interests given his incarceration and ability to provide support | Father: termination is not in children’s best interests; he can provide financial support and should not lose rights | State: father’s imprisonment and failure to internalize harm prevent him from providing safety, stability, or meaningful support | Affirmed termination — incarceration and lack of insight weigh against reunification |
| Whether statutory exceptions (§232.116(3)(a)–(c)) saved the father’s parent-child relationship | Father: exceptions apply (relative custody, children’s objections, closeness) | State: record lacks legal-custody placement, objections pertained to mother, no evidence of father–child bond | Exceptions inapplicable or unproven; court permissively declined to save relationship |
| Whether children could be safely returned to the mother under §232.116(1)(f) | Mother: she had housing, employment, driver’s license, attended visits, and made therapeutic progress so children could be returned | State: household instability, adult daughter’s problematic history, mother’s limited insight and mixed admissions, and child testimony suggesting mother’s active abuse show children could not be returned safely | Affirmed termination — children could not be returned at time of hearing |
| Whether a statutory exception, extension of time, or guardianship should have been granted for the mother | Mother: older children objected to termination; requested six‑month extension or guardianship to keep siblings together | State: children’s wishes not dispositive; social worker and court found six months insufficient; guardianship would not ensure permanency | Denied — exceptions and extension inappropriate; guardianship not preferable; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (de novo review of termination appeals)
- In re D.G., 704 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 2005) (parental rights are separate adjudications)
- In re H.R.K., 433 N.W.2d 46 (Iowa 1988) (parental acknowledgment of abuse required for meaningful change)
- In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737 (Iowa 2011) (best‑interest consideration includes parent’s ability to provide needs and permanence)
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (statutory exceptions to termination are permissive, parent bears burden)
- In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518 (Iowa 2020) (child cannot be returned when parent not in position to provide care at time of trial)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (child cannot be returned if it risks a new CINA adjudication)
- In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 2002) (failure to address parent’s role in abuse undermines reunification prospects)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (courts must act with urgency once limitation period lapses)
- In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1987) (supporting view that prolonged delay justifies termination)
- In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019) (children’s wishes are relevant but not controlling)
- In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (parent lacks standing to argue against termination of other parent to gain benefit)
- In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2003) (issues, including constitutional ones, must be raised below to preserve error)