In the Interest of J.S. and R.D., Minor Children, A.S., Mother, R.D., Father, 17-0081

Two children (J.S., b. 2011; R.D., b. 2012) were removed after concerns about mother’s supervision and an assault on the maternal grandmother; children placed with the maternal grandmother and a CINA petition was stipulated to.
Parents were largely uninvolved during services and hearings; permanency hearing proceeded without either parent present and DHS reported little parent contact.
Mother engaged intermittently in substance-abuse treatment, had relapses, missed drug tests, and tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana near the termination hearing.
Father had a history of methamphetamine use but claimed abstinence since Dec. 2015; minimal contact with R.D. (roughly ~1.25 hours in six months), lived in nonapproved housing, and tested positive for marijuana at the hearing.
Termination hearing occurred Aug 25, 2016 (continued to Sept 12); juvenile court terminated mother’s rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(e), (f), (h) and father’s rights under (e) and (h); both parents appealed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Notice of termination hearing	Service was untimely (served 3 days before hearing vs. statutory 7/14 days); due process violated	State: mother had prior notice; counsel had notice; no prejudice	Service defect did not preclude termination; mother had prior knowledge and no prejudice shown
Request for 6‑month extension	N/A (mother did not seek extension)	Father: needs additional six months to stabilize housing, employment, and parenting	Denied: father’s recent engagement was too late, positive drug test at hearing, and gradual visitation would take months; extension would not likely resolve issues
Application of statutory exceptions (placement with relative)	Parents: placement with maternal grandmother should counsel against termination	State: relative placement does not automatically preclude termination where other factors favor termination	Exception not applied; grandmother was a suitable long‑term placement and parents’ conduct justified termination
Parent–child bond exception (bond/child’s emotional needs)	Mother: strong bond with J.S. and children’s emotional issues counsel against termination	State: children’s best interests favor stability and capable care over uncertain parental involvement	Exception not applied; children’s need for stable, capable home outweighed emotional bond considerations

In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (de novo review and standard for termination appeals)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (clear-and-convincing evidence required for termination)
In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359 (Iowa 2002) (weight given to juvenile court findings but not binding)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (court must give troubled parents a full measure of patience but patience is not unlimited)
In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (child’s best interests are paramount in termination proceedings)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (unchallenged termination grounds need not be discussed)
In re R.J., 436 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 1989) (parental delay can become a hardship on children)
In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (trial court discretion to apply statutory exceptions based on child’s best interests)