In the Interest of K.W. and K.W., Minor Children, D.W., Father
17-0790
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Father Dalton had long-term methamphetamine use and admitted dealing methamphetamine from the home where his two children lived; DHS founded an abuse report for denial of critical care/failure to supervise.
- Children were adjudicated CINA in Jan. 2016 and removed from Dalton’s custody; by July 2016 they were placed with their paternal grandfather and remained there.
- Dalton moved to southern Missouri in Aug. 2016 and had only sporadic contact: four supervised visits between Nov. 2016 and Mar. 2017; DHS last contact with Dalton was Aug. 2016.
- State petitioned to terminate parental rights in Jan. 2017; hearing occurred with parents absent; juvenile court terminated father’s rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) (both children) and (1)(h) (younger child).
- Dalton appealed, arguing insufficient proof of statutory grounds, inadequate DHS efforts (services unavailable in Missouri), termination not in children’s best interests, and alternatively requested 3–6 months extension to reunify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dalton) | Defendant's Argument (State/DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §232.116(1)(e) ground proved (lack of significant & meaningful contact; no reasonable efforts to resume care) | Dalton argued grandfather prevented meaningful contact | State: Dalton failed to preserve grandfather interference claim; record shows Dalton had sporadic, self-caused contact failures | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supports §232.116(1)(e) termination |
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts under §232.102(7) | Dalton argued DHS efforts were inadequate because services were only in Iowa while he lived in Missouri | State: Claim not preserved; Dalton made no effort to transfer services to Missouri | Claim not preserved; court rejected challenge |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests (§232.116(2)) | Dalton stressed emotional attachment of children to him and argued for preservation of parent-child bond | State: Ongoing drug use, missed visits, and instability create safety risk and emotional harm | Affirmed: children's safety and long-term nurturing favored termination |
| Whether additional 3–6 months reunification allowed (§232.104(2)(b)) | Dalton requested more time to address issues and reunify | State: Chronic drug use and lack of parental commitment make short extension futile; court should protect children’s permanency | Denied: extension would not likely resolve chronic substance-abuse and parenting deficits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2003) (error preservation obligation in child-welfare proceedings)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (reasonable-efforts requirement tied to State’s burden)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (standard for affirming on any one statutory ground; review standards)
- State v. Petithory, 702 N.W.2d 854 (Iowa 2005) (recognizing hazards to children from methamphetamine use)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (chronic, unresolved drug addiction can render a parent unfit)