In the Interest of J.W., Minor Child
21-0420
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- J.W. (born ~2014) was removed from Mia’s care in Feb. 2019 after Mia’s methamphetamine and marijuana use and J.W. tested positive for methamphetamine; DHS founded abuse.
- J.W. has lived with a foster parent (a school paraprofessional) since May 2019; she showed marked speech, behavioral, and emotional improvement in foster care and is bonded to the foster parent, who seeks to adopt.
- Mia repeatedly relapsed, tested positive for drugs multiple times during the case, had inconsistent engagement in substance‑abuse and mental‑health treatment, and admitted she could not safely parent J.W. at the time of trial.
- Visitation deteriorated: phone/virtual visits aggravated J.W.’s behaviors; therapeutic visits were largely cancelled by Mia; visits were ultimately suspended on therapist and GAL motion because contact was detrimental to J.W.
- Mia lived with a paramour (Chris) who had an open CINA matter and a child‑endangerment arrest; Mia’s living situation was not approved and lacked stability and employment.
- The State petitioned to terminate in Nov. 2020; the juvenile court terminated parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(e) and (f); Mia appealed but did not challenge paragraph (f) on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory grounds for termination | Mia contested the court’s (e) finding but not (f). | State argued evidence supports termination and (f) independently supports the order. | Court affirmed termination; because Mia did not challenge (f), that uncontested ground alone supports termination. |
| Best interests of the child | Mia argued termination was not in J.W.’s best interests given parental bond and COVID-related service barriers. | State argued J.W.’s safety, therapeutic progress, and need for permanency favored termination; services were available remotely. | Court held termination is in J.W.’s best interests based on safety, therapeutic progress in foster care, and urgency for permanency. |
| Statutory bond exception (§232.116(3)(c)) | Mia urged the court to decline termination because of closeness of parent‑child relationship. | State and therapists argued contact was detrimental; J.W. had not lived with Mia for ~23 months and showed negative reactions to visits. | Court declined to apply the exception; visitation suspension and therapist opinions showed termination would not be detrimental. |
| Additional six‑month extension (§232.104(2)(b)) | Mia requested six more months to work toward reunification. | State argued Mia had nearly two years to remedy core issues and showed insufficient progress; home and substance risks remained. | Court denied extension—record did not show removal reasons would be resolved in six months. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.H., 950 N.W.2d 27 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (de novo review standard; child’s best interests control)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (affirmance may rest on any proved statutory ground)
- Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa 1996) (failure to raise an issue waives appellate review)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (waiver of challenge to termination ground leaves unchallenged ground binding)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (safety and permanency are defining elements of child’s best interests)
- In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019) (statutory exceptions to termination are permissive, not mandatory)
- In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (standard for granting a six‑month extension requires likely resolution of removal reasons)