In the Interest of K.G., M.S., H.S., and J.M., Minor Children, R.S., Mother
17-0347
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 17, 2017Background
- Mother (Ruby) appealed termination of her parental rights to four children (born 2005, 2006, 2013, 2015); appeal concerned only the mother.
- Children were removed after prior DHS involvement: domestic violence, one child injured, and Ruby tested positive for methamphetamine in 2014; Ruby also had serious untreated mental-health issues including delusions/hallucinations.
- After a 2015 residential treatment admission, children were returned but Ruby was discharged for repeated missed appointments; she later admitted heavy, daily methamphetamine use and had inconsistent participation in treatment thereafter.
- Since October 2015 removal, Ruby failed to obtain stable housing, employment, transportation, consistent mental-health care, or sustained sobriety; visitation was irregular and she declined visits with the newborn.
- The juvenile court terminated parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f) (older children) and §232.116(1)(h) (younger children); the children have special physical and mental-health needs and were thriving in current placements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ruby) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of statutory ground for termination (risk of adjudicatory harm) | Clear-and-convincing evidence children would face appreciable risk if returned given untreated substance abuse and mental illness | Ruby argued evidence insufficient to show current risk at time of hearing | Affirmed: evidence showed appreciable risk; termination proper |
| Reasonable efforts to reunify | State provided many services (treatment, testing, counseling, visitation, transportation) | Ruby argued DHS failed to make reasonable efforts | Affirmed: Ruby did not preserve objection and DHS made reasonable efforts |
| Best interests of the children | Termination best serves children's safety, stability, and ongoing medical/therapeutic needs | Ruby urged reunification / requested more time to address issues | Affirmed: children’s needs and progress in placements outweighed waiting for mother |
| Whether "last-minute" progress precludes termination | State maintained late efforts insufficient after long history of noncompliance | Ruby pointed to recent claimed progress and abstinence since Sept 2016 | Affirmed: last-minute efforts insufficient; courts view late progress skeptically |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (de novo review and framework for termination review)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (standards for termination proceedings)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (statutory elements and best-interests analysis)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (parent cannot wait until eve of termination to seek reunification)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (children cannot be deprived of permanency while parent remains unable to provide stability)