In the Interest of J.D. and D.D., Minor Children, S.D., Mother, D.D., Father, 17-0862

Parents S.D. (mother) and D.D. (father) had two children; police responded repeatedly to domestic-violence and alcohol-related incidents from 2014 through early 2016.
In October 2015 mother drove intoxicated with children in the car (preliminary breath test .239); additional incidents included a child ingesting father’s alcohol and reports of ongoing disputes.
In February 2016 father was arrested for public intoxication at a CINA adjudicatory hearing; children were removed and a CINA petition filed in December 2015.
Parents intermittently engaged in services; they claimed sobriety and counseling attendance by early 2017 but the court found their testimony inconsistent and not credible, and they had minimal participation in AA and counseling.
Juvenile court terminated parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f) and (l) in May 2017; parents appealed challenging the State’s proof that the children could not be returned at the time of the termination hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory ground §232.116(1)(f) was proved (child cannot be returned at present)	Parents: State failed to prove children could not be returned at time of termination	State: Continued risk from unresolved alcohol/domestic violence and parents not credible or compliant with services	Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned at hearing
Whether termination is in children’s best interests under §232.116(2)	Parents: Claimed they were sober and had addressed issues, so reunification was appropriate	State/GAL: Children need permanency; parents’ past performance indicates risk persists	Held: Affirmed — termination served children’s long-term safety and need for stability
Whether de novo review supports juvenile court findings	Parents: Urged appellate relief despite juvenile court credibility findings	State: Appellate court should give weight to trial credibility but review de novo	Held: Affirmed — de novo review agreed with juvenile court’s implicit credibility findings
Whether any §232.116(3) exception precluded termination	Parents: Did not successfully invoke any exception on appeal	State: Exceptions inapplicable	Held: Not disputed; court did not find an applicable exception

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (sets three-part framework for termination review)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (de novo review standard and weight to credibility findings)
Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) ("at the present time" refers to termination hearing timing)
In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (probable harm threat can justify termination even if different from initial removal)
P.L. v. State, 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (limitations on exceptions in §232.116(3))
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (past parental performance probative of future care)
In re C.S., 776 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (children should not be left in limbo awaiting parental improvement)
Schutjer v. Algona Manor Care Ctr., 780 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2010) (inferring implicit credibility findings)