In the Interest of J.C. and J.S., Minor Children, J.S., Mother
17-0750
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Mother Julie has two children, J.C. (removed as toddler after wandering unsupervised; tested positive for methamphetamine/ecstasy) and J.S. (removed at birth after mother tested positive for methamphetamine).
- IDHS intervened for supervision failures, domestic violence (father threatened Julie with a sawed-off shotgun in presence of J.C.), and substance abuse; J.C. was placed with paternal aunt and uncle; J.S. placed in foster care.
- Julie persisted in substance use issues, denied or minimized problems, and had unstable housing and employment; she entered residential treatment (Clearview) but made limited progress and resumed a relationship with a known criminal/substance user.
- The juvenile court continued a termination hearing to allow Julie time to complete treatment; by the March 2017 hearing she lacked stable housing, employment, therapy, and a recovery sponsor, and continued the risky relationship.
- The court terminated Julie’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h), finding the statutory elements met, termination in the children’s best interests, and permissive exceptions in § 232.116(3) inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to terminate under §232.116(1)(h) (child ≤3; CINA; removed ≥6 months; cannot be returned) | Julie: evidence insufficient to show children could not be returned now. | State: clear-and-convincing evidence mother still posed appreciable risk (substance use, unstable housing/employment, unsafe paramour, inability to meet children’s needs). | Held: Affirmed — statutory ground proved; children could not be returned. |
| Whether IDHS made reasonable efforts to reunify | Julie: IDHS failed to provide adequate visitation, timely unsupervised contact, and transportation assistance. | State: offered multiple services (treatment, visitation, case management, therapy, supports); adjustments to visitation were reasonable given child behaviors and mother’s location. | Held: Affirmed — IDHS made reasonable efforts under the circumstances. |
| Whether court should grant six-month extension under §232.104(2)(b) | Julie: additional six months would allow reunification. | State: past delays and minimal progress show additional time would not eliminate need for removal. | Held: Denied — court reasonably concluded six-month extension would not likely resolve causes of removal. |
| Best interests and applicability of §232.116(3) permissive exceptions | Julie: strong bond with children and placement with paternal aunt support denying termination. | State: children thriving in current placements; mother lacks ability to meet needs or keep children safe; exceptions are discretionary and not warranted. | Held: Termination is in children’s best interests; permissive exceptions not applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard for de novo review of termination proceedings)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (framework for termination: statutory ground, best interests, permissive exceptions)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (child cannot be returned if appreciable risk of adjudicatory harm exists)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (parents cannot wait until eve of termination to show interest in parenting)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (drug addiction can render parent unable to care for children)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (courts should not gamble with children’s future by delaying permanency)