In the Interest of F.K., G.K., and T.Y., Minor Children
21-0901
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2021Background
- Mother J.K.’s three children (born 2015, 2016, 2017) were adjudicated CINA in Jan. 2019 after concerns about the mother’s methamphetamine use and domestic violence in the home.
- Mother completed a treatment program in Mar. 2019 but thereafter missed multiple drug tests, tested positive for methamphetamine in late 2020/early 2021, and was arrested Jan. 11, 2020; children were removed Jan. 14, 2020 and placed with an extended family member.
- Cherokee Nation determined the children were Indian children under ICWA and intervened; Cherokee Nation’s expert (Renee Gann) testified returning the children to the parents would likely cause serious emotional/physical harm and that the current placement satisfied ICWA preferences.
- DHS filed a case timeline; the district court took judicial notice after an objection limited to pre-social-worker events—on appeal the mother raised a different judicial-notice objection which the court found unpreserved and not prejudicial.
- The district court terminated the mother’s rights (to the two older under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f) and to the youngest under §232.116(1)(h)), concluded termination was in the children’s best interests, and declined to apply permissive exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother J.K.) | Defendant's Argument (State/Cherokee Nation) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of DHS timeline | Timeline contained matters not subject to judicial notice and DHS worker lacked personal knowledge of pre-assignment events | Timeline was filed in the case, based on DHS reports in the record, and admissible; mother’s in-court objection was limited | Error on the new appellate objection not preserved; no prejudice shown; court’s consideration of timeline affirmed |
| ICWA §232B.6(6)(a) burden (expert testimony; proof beyond reasonable doubt) | State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt continued custody would likely cause serious emotional/physical harm | Cherokee Nation’s qualified expert testified continued custody likely to cause serious harm based on substance abuse, housing, income, mental health; termination in children’s best interests | Requirement satisfied; expert testimony supported finding beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of statutory grounds (§232.116(1)(f) & (h)) | Evidence insufficient to show children could not be returned or statutory criteria met | Mother had ongoing substance use, unstable housing, mental-health issues, sporadic cooperation; statutory removal-duration elements met | Clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §232.116(1)(f) for older children and §232.116(1)(h) for youngest |
| Best interests and permissive exceptions (§232.116(2) & (3)) | Children placed with relative and close parent-child ties; court should apply permissive exceptions to avoid termination | Proceedings had lasted >2 years with little parental progress; children need permanency and stability | Termination is in the children’s best interests; permissive exceptions should not be applied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (de novo review of termination proceedings)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (State must prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (best interests primary concern in termination analysis)
- In re S.M., 508 N.W.2d 732 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (requirement to consider qualified expert testimony in ICWA contexts)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (discussion of ICWA-related proof and expert testimony requirements)