In the Interest of K.L., M.L., and O.S., Minor Children, K.L., Mother
17-0346
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- Mother (Kara) is a long-term methamphetamine user; three minor children removed and parental rights termination sought under Iowa Code ch. 232.
- At termination hearing Kara was jailed on child endangerment charges after two children tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Kara has a decade-long history of methamphetamine addiction with multiple treatment attempts and relapses during the case.
- Kara repeatedly maintained contact with an abusive paramour despite directives to cease contact; domestic violence and unsafe persons in the home occurred in the children’s presence.
- The juvenile court terminated Kara’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g) and (l); Kara did not contest the statutory grounds but sought six more months for reunification and urged preservation based on parent-child bond.
- The children were reported to be thriving in their current placements and continued exposure to drugs and domestic violence posed ongoing risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kara) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether additional six-month continuance of reunification was required under § 232.104(2)(b) | Permanency appropriate because grounds for removal (drug abuse, unsafe relationships) unlikely to be resolved in six months | Kara requested six more months to attempt reunification and address substance abuse | Court affirmed denial of continuance; causes of removal (long-term meth use, unsafe relationships) not likely resolved in six months |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests under § 232.116(2) | Termination promotes children’s safety and permanency given ongoing risk | Kara argued reunification and bond favored preserving relationship | Court held termination was in children’s best interests due to substantial risk from drug use/domestic violence |
| Whether closeness of parent-child bond should preclude termination under § 232.116(3)(c) | Even if bond exists, harm from returning children outweighs any detriment from termination | Kara argued strong bond would make termination detrimental to the children | Court exercised discretion not to apply § 232.116(3)(c); ongoing harm outweighed bond |
| Whether statutory grounds proven (¶ (g) and (l)) | State proved grounds (drug exposure, parental inability to care) | Kara did not contest sufficiency of evidence | Court affirmed termination on those statutory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard for de novo review of termination proceedings)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (framework for considering best interests and permissive § 232.116(3) factors)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (State must prove statutory ground and best interest)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (children cannot be deprived of permanency indefinitely while parent addresses issues)
- In re M.W., 458 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 1990) (legislative determination that termination can promote child’s needs when grounds exist)
- In re C.C., 538 N.W.2d 664 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (termination affirmed where mother’s relationship with abusive boyfriend posed risk)
- In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (consideration of parent's treatment history in assessing likelihood of future sobriety)