In the Interest of H.J. and L.J., Minor Children
21-0601
Iowa Ct. App.Sep 22, 2021Background
- Father Jesse has a history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and lost parental rights to older children in 2016; he was incarcerated for related offenses and later sentenced to a lengthy term.
- Children H.J. (b. 2018) and L.J. (b. 2017) were removed after incidents of domestic violence in 2019; Jesse had no meaningful contact with them since October 2019.
- While Jesse did not engage in services during incarceration, the children have lived with a foster family (which adopted their older siblings) and were reported to be doing well.
- At the termination hearing Jesse conceded the statutory grounds for termination but argued DHS failed to adequately investigate placement with his two sisters, which he claimed could trigger a statutory exception to termination.
- The juvenile court terminated Jesse’s parental rights, denied his sister Megan’s motion to intervene, and found termination served the children’s best interests; Jesse appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jesse) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of paragraph (h) ground | Jesse contests termination grounds on appeal | Jesse admitted at hearing children could not be returned due to incarceration | Not preserved; court affirms termination under §232.116(1)(h) |
| Standing to challenge denial of sister’s motion to intervene | Denial prevented relative placement and harmed his case | A parent lacks standing to assert another party’s right to intervene | Jesse lacks standing; court will not address Megan’s intervention claim |
| Reasonable efforts / relative placement | DHS failed to thoroughly seek/seat relatives (his two sisters) | DHS investigated: Elizabeth had criminal history; Megan declined training and refused to supervise visits | DHS made reasonable efforts; relatives were not suitable placement |
| Applicability of permissive factor §232.116(3)(a) | If children placed with a relative, court should forgo termination | Children were not in relative custody at hearing, so factor inapplicable | Factor inapplicable; court properly did not apply §232.116(3)(a) |
| Children’s best interests | Termination was not in children’s best interests; relatives/parental placement preferable | Safety, permanency, bonding with foster/adoptive family favor termination | Termination was in children’s best interests; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (parent lacks standing to raise another party’s intervention claim)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (State must show reasonable efforts to return child as part of proving child cannot be safely returned)
- In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521 (Iowa 2019) (when relying on §232.116(1)(h), State must show DHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (best-interests framework for termination decisions)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (safety and need for a permanent home are defining elements of best interests)
- In re A.H., 950 N.W.2d 27 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (standards of review in child-welfare proceedings)
- In re H.N.B., 619 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa 2000) (review standard for denial of motion to intervene)