In the Interest of J.A., Minor Child, J.R., Mother
16-1512
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Mother (Jane) has long-term methamphetamine use; child J.A. tested positive at birth.
- IDHS repeatedly monitored and tested Jane; she admitted tampering with urine and hair tests and repeatedly relapsed after treatment programs.
- Jane was selling methamphetamine from her home; law enforcement conducted controlled buys and a potential indictment with lengthy imprisonment was anticipated.
- Juvenile court terminated Jane’s parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l); Jane conceded grounds but appealed.
- At the termination hearing Jane was enrolled in inpatient treatment but had a history of failed rehabilitation attempts and demonstrated paranoid behavior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported under §232.116(1)(h) (child cannot be returned “at the present time”) | Child cannot be returned because mother’s ongoing substance abuse, test tampering, drug dealing, and pending indictment make return unsafe | Mother conceded statutory grounds were met but emphasized efforts at treatment | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination under (1)(h) |
| Whether mother should be granted an additional six months for reunification | State opposed; risk and underlying conditions unlikely to resolve in six months | Mother requested six more months to work toward reunification | Court denied additional time: little likelihood conditions would be resolved in six months |
| Whether closeness of parent-child relationship defeats termination under §232.116(3)(c) | State argued child’s safety and needs outweigh any bond | Mother argued closeness of relationship should preclude termination | Court exercised discretion not to apply the permissive exception; termination stands |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | State argued termination serves child’s need for safety, stability, and permanency | Mother argued termination was not in child’s best interest | Court found termination is in J.A.’s best interest given mother’s substance abuse, relapse history, criminal exposure, and paranoia |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental liberty interest requires accurate decisionmaking and heightened burden)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (de novo review and three-step termination analysis)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (definition of "at the present time" and review standard)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (affirmance may rest on any statutory ground supported by record)
- In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (child cannot be returned if at risk of adjudicatory harm)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (overruling on other grounds noted)
- In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (child's best interest paramount in termination decisions)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (analysis of closeness exception under §232.116(3)(c))
- In re K.F., 437 N.W.2d 559 (Iowa 1989) (parental behavior affecting home environment relevant to best interest)