In the Interest of J.M., Minor Child, J.L., Mother
17-1197
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- In Feb 2016 police found mother Jazie (then a teen) with J.M. in a hotel; marijuana and a handgun were present; J.M. was removed and adjudicated a child in need of assistance in Mar 2016.
- IDHS implemented a reunification plan: substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, parenting classes, supervised/semisupervised visitation; mother largely engaged and made substantial progress (employment, stable housing, parenting improvements).
- Mother relapsed several times: positive marijuana tests in Sept 2016 and three more times between Dec 2016 and Feb 2017; visits were adjusted accordingly.
- At the time of the termination hearing mother had negative drug tests for two months, remained in treatment, had stable employment, housing, strong support network, and frequent visitation (99% attendance).
- The State sought termination under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l); the juvenile court granted termination; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §232.116(1)(e) (no significant/meaningful contact for 6 months) was proved | State: mother had relapses and failed to maintain meaningful compliance/contact during six months | Jazie: maintained visits (99%), complied with services, bonded with child, had housing/employment | Reversed — State did not prove lack of significant and meaningful contact by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether §232.116(1)(l) (severe substance-related disorder; danger; poor prognosis) was proved | State: prior positive tests (including child’s test at removal) show danger and poor prognosis | Jazie: marijuana use alone is insufficient; she was engaged in treatment, had negative tests, good prognosis | Reversed — State failed to show DSM‑V based substance-related disorder causing danger and infeasible reunification |
| Whether §232.116(1)(h) (child cannot be returned now) was proved — nexus between drug use and adjudicatory harm | State: continued marijuana use, home concerns, immaturity and parenting deficits risk harm | Jazie: no evidence of being under the influence while caring for child; bonded relationship, improved parenting, stable home/supports | Reversed — State failed to show clear and convincing nexus between marijuana use and appreciable risk of adjudicatory harm |
| Whether reasonable efforts / best interest supported termination | State: termination necessary for child safety and permanency after relapses | Jazie: IDHS provided reunification services; she engaged and improved — termination not in child's best interest | Decision reflects findings that services and parental progress weighed against termination; reversal (termination not sustained) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (framework for de novo review and termination analysis)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (three-step inquiry for termination appeals)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard applies)
- In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (marijuana use alone does not establish adjudicatory harm; need nexus)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (child cannot be returned if appreciable risk of adjudicatory harm exists)