In the Interest of J v. Minor Child, J v. Father, 17-0026

Child J.V. born January 2015; father James was jailed 16 days after birth for probation violations and later for threats and harassment.
At termination hearing James remained incarcerated with a projected discharge in 2019; parole eligibility disputed and could be delayed by prison infractions.
James had virtually no contact or bond with the child—one jail visit and otherwise no contact for about two years.
Father proposed placement with relatives until his release; DHS investigated and found familial placements unsafe due to histories of violent and serious criminal conduct.
Juvenile court terminated James’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (h); appeal challenged sufficiency of evidence and best-interest determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence shows child cannot be returned to father at present (Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h))	State: father’s incarceration and inability to care for child now creates appreciable risk of harm if returned	James: challenges sufficiency of evidence; emphasizes potential parole eligibility before discharge date	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence that child cannot be returned at time of hearing due to father’s incarceration and risk of adjudicatory harm
Whether termination is in child’s best interest	State: permanency and safety outweigh father’s rights; relatives unsuitable	James: argues placement with relatives until release would protect bond and allow reunification later	Affirmed: termination serves child’s need for permanency; relatives unsafe; no bond with father
Whether waiting for father’s future rehabilitation is required	State: child cannot be made to wait indefinitely for parent to stabilize	James: argues hope for future change supports preserving rights	Rejected: Court held child’s right to permanency outweighs speculative future improvement by parent
Adequacy of consideration of relatives as placement option	State: DHS investigated and found concerns of violent/criminal histories	James: urged relative placement as less restrictive alternative	Court found relatives unsuitable and denied delay; termination appropriate

In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (timing for assessing whether child can be returned is at termination hearing)
In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (appreciable risk standard for adjudicatory harm)
In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (returning child cannot expose child to risk amounting to a new CINA adjudication)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (children cannot be deprived of permanency while hoping a parent may later improve)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (emphasizing child’s need for a stable home over parental hopes for change)
In re C.S., 776 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (child’s rights and needs can trump parental rights when permanency is at issue)