In the Interest of H.S. and H.S., Minor Children
21-0405
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Mother (C.S.) and father moved from Florida to Iowa in Jan 2019 seeking adoption for their child Ha.; they left Ha. with prospective caregivers multiple times and later also had a second child Hu. in 2019.
- Repeatedly leaving Ha. with other families prompted DHS intervention; Ha. was temporarily removed Sept. 2019 and adjudicated CINA; Hu. was removed Dec. 2019 and adjudicated CINA.
- Parents returned to Florida Dec. 29, 2019; since that time the children have been placed in separate foster homes and had only limited contact with parents.
- An Interstate Compact home-study of the parents’ Florida residence was completed but not approved; DHS recommended termination for lack of progress and safety concerns (domestic violence, mother’s mental health, father’s substance abuse).
- Trial occurred Sept. and Dec. 2020; the juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h), found termination in the children’s best interests, declined to apply the § 232.116(3)(c) closeness exception, and denied an additional six months for reunification.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ha. was "removed from physical custody" for § 232.116(1)(h)(3) | Ha. was residing with the B. family, so she was not removed from mother’s physical custody | Mother had opportunity for custody and had resumed care previously; a change to lack of custody occurred when court ordered removal | Court: element satisfied—there was a change from physical custody to lack of physical custody |
| Whether children could not be returned at time of hearing (§ 232.116(1)(h)(4)) | Mother had made progress on plan and could safely care for children; argued returning would not create new CINA adjudication | DHS cited lack of progress, safety concerns, unapproved home study, and infeasibility of services in Florida | Court: clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned; termination grounds proven |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests | Mother claimed stable residence, consistent visits, and compliance supported reunification | State pointed to children’s need for permanency, parents’ minimal contact, and ongoing safety concerns | Court: termination serves children’s safety, permanency, and stability; adoption appropriate |
| Whether closeness exception (§ 232.116(3)(c)) applies | Mother urged bond and requested avoidance of termination due to closeness of relationship | State pointed to limited bond given children’s age, long removal, and little parental presence | Court: exception not proven and, alternatively, applying it would be contrary to children’s best interests |
| Whether additional six months should be granted for reunification | Mother requested six more months to continue efforts | State noted parents intended to remain in Florida, barriers to services, and no likelihood removal need would end in six months | Court: denied additional time; no reasonable expectation removal need would end |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162 (Iowa 2021) (de novo review of termination orders)
- In re C.Z., 956 N.W.2d 113 (Iowa 2021) (standard for appellate review of termination)
- In re C.F.-H., 889 N.W.2d 201 (Iowa 2016) (meaning of "removed from physical custody")
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) ("at the present time" means at termination hearing)
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (parent bears burden to prove closeness exception)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (best-interests standard focuses on safety and permanency)
- In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737 (Iowa 2011) (defining elements of children’s best interests)