In the Interest of K.M., R.M., and L.B., Minor Children, L.M., Mother
17-0498
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- Mother had long-standing DHS involvement dating to 2012; by 2015 DHS removed R.M. (2009) and K.M. (2011) after concerns about mother’s mental health, parenting, housing, and failure to meet children’s medical needs. L.B. (2015) was removed shortly after birth and adjudicated CINA.
- Mother received multiple services (mental-health therapy, substance-abuse evaluation, supervised visitation, housing/employment assistance) but participated inconsistently, did not complete psychiatric evaluation, and was unsuccessfully discharged from outpatient substance treatment.
- The children remained out of mother’s custody: R.M. and K.M. for almost 19 months, L.B. for over a year; visits stayed fully supervised and were often cut short by the mother’s frustration.
- DHS and the juvenile court found mother could not meet the children’s serious medical and developmental needs, lacked stable housing, employment, transportation, and continued to have unresolved mental-health issues.
- The State petitioned to terminate parental rights under multiple statutory grounds; the juvenile court terminated mother’s rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d) and (e) for all children and (h) as to L.B.; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proved by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: State failed to show children could not be returned to her custody at the time of the hearing | State: Children meet statutory elements (age, CINA, removal period) and mother still cannot parent them due to unresolved mental-health, inconsistent service compliance, no stable housing/employment/transportation | Held: Affirmed; §232.116(1)(f) applies to R.M. & K.M.; §232.116(1)(h) applies to L.B.; clear and convincing proof met |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Mother: Termination is not in children’s best interests; mother has family support and some engagement with services | State: Children’s safety, stability, and long-term needs favor termination because mother has not shown ability to meet children’s serious needs and children are thriving in placements | Held: Affirmed; termination is in children’s best interests under §232.116(2) |
| Whether trial court should have granted additional six months for reunification | Mother: Needs more time to address issues and reunify | State: Mother already received extra time and did not make sufficient progress; children cannot wait longer for permanency | Held: Affirmed; additional six-month extension denied under §232.104(2)(b) because removal need would not likely end in six months |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (three-step analysis for termination review; de novo review)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (parent’s past performance informs future care; permanency considerations)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (may affirm on any statutory ground supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (urgency and children’s need for permanency)
- In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170 (Iowa 1997) (permanency cannot be postponed indefinitely while parents improve)