In the Interest of J.O. and C.O., Minor Children, M.S., Mother
17-0486
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Two children (J.O., born 2013; C.O., born 2014) removed after founded child-abuse findings and parental substance-abuse history; J.O. tested positive for cocaine at birth.
- Mother (Melissa) has a long history of addiction, completed residential treatment, but repeatedly relapsed, had unstable housing/employment, and maintained an ongoing relationship with an abusive, substance-using partner (Jason).
- Multiple unexplained injuries to the children produced founded DHS assessments for failure to provide adequate supervision; DHS repeatedly restricted visitation to supervised or semi-supervised levels.
- The State filed termination petitions in January and August 2015; a joint termination/permanency hearing occurred Sept. 2015, but the juvenile court delayed issuing a written ruling for ~18 months while periodically revisiting visitation levels.
- After additional hearings and an incident in Jan. 2017 in which Melissa allowed unapproved contact between Jason and the children, the court terminated Melissa’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h), finding the children could not be returned to her custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of reasonable efforts / visitation discretion | Melissa: court denied DHS discretion to move beyond fully supervised visits May 2015–Oct 2016, stymying reunification | State: Melissa’s poor judgment, dishonesty, and unsafe relationships justified continued supervision | Court: No violation; supervision decisions were in children’s best interests given injury history and Melissa later allowed unapproved contact with Jason |
| Sufficiency of statutory ground for termination under §232.116(1)(h) | Melissa: State failed to prove children could not be returned at time of hearing | State: Ongoing safety, unstable housing/employment, and decision-making show children could not be returned | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supports that children could not be returned at time of termination |
| Request for additional time for reunification (§232.104(2)(b)) | Melissa: Needed more time because visitation progression was delayed | State: Further delay would harm children; Melissa had years of DHS involvement without resolving core safety issues | Court: Denied additional time; likelihood of resolving chronic instability in six months was low; permanency favored termination |
| Best interests / parent-child bond (§232.116(2),(3)(c)) | Melissa: Strong bond with children; termination detrimental | State: Continued exposure to domestic violence and drug use not in children’s best interests | Court: Safety, stability, and children’s need for permanency outweighed bond; termination appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (stresses timely permanency determinations in dependency/termination proceedings)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (reasonableness of reunification efforts affects burden on termination elements)
- In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (best interests of child control assessment of visitation/efforts)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (elements and timing for §232.116(1)(h) analysis)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standards for de novo review and clear-and-convincing evidence in child-welfare appeals)
- In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (State’s burden to prove termination allegations by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (courts should not make children wait indefinitely for a stable biological parent; permanency considerations)