In the Interest of K.B., D.B., and A.B., Minor Children, K.B., Father, M.K., Mother, 16-2024

Three children (K.B., b.2011; D.B., b.2013; A.B., b.2014) with profound developmental/medical needs were adjudicated CINA in Oct 2015 and removed from parents’ custody in Nov 2015; no trial home period exceeded 30 days.
DHS involvement began April 2015 for unsanitary housing; children were in foster care from Nov 2015 and placed together in a special-needs foster home where they made significant developmental progress.
Parents obtained a four-bedroom residence in July 2016 but remained unemployed, relied on father’s disability income, had inconsistent transportation, missed appointments, and struggled to maintain cleanliness and follow through with medical/educational services.
Parents participated intermittently in mental-health services and parenting programs; service providers observed parental love but concluded parents had not internalized skills or established reciprocal bonds with the children.
Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f) (K.B.) and (1)(h) (D.B., A.B.); parents appealed contesting statutory grounds, a bonding exception under §232.116(3)(c), and denial of a six-month extension under §232.104(2)(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State proved statutory grounds for termination under §232.116(1)(f)/(h)	State: children were removed long enough, adjudicated CINA, and could not be returned to parents’ custody	Parents: had made progress (housing, some services), one successful overnight, could parent safely	Held: State proved by clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned; termination affirmed
Whether termination is in children’s best interests under §232.116(2)	State: children benefited from stable, specialized foster care and needed permanency	Parents: did not contest best‑interests finding	Held: Issue waived by parents; termination is in children’s best interests
Whether §232.116(3)(c) bonding exception bars termination	Parents: close parent–child bond would make termination detrimental to children	State/Providers: bond was weak or nonreciprocal; children benefited more from foster placement	Held: Bond did not outweigh parents’ inability to meet children’s needs; exception not applied
Whether court erred denying six‑month extension under §232.104(2)(b)	Parents: needed more time to complete reunification tasks	State: permanency urgency for young, special‑needs children; parents unlikely to resolve issues in six months	Held: Court did not abuse discretion; extension denied

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (three‑step analysis for termination review)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (permissive nature of §232.116(3) factors)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (past parental performance informs future capacity and urgency)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (focus on whether termination will disadvantage the child)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (children’s need for permanency outweighs hope parents will improve)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (limits on keeping children in foster care while parents get their lives together)
In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743 (Iowa 1981) (use of past parental performance in best‑interests analysis)