In the Interest of K.W., Minor Child, M.W., Mother J.A.-s., Father, 17-0930

K.W. born September 2016 tested positive for methamphetamine; child was removed and adjudicated CINA in Oct. 2016.
Mother has long history of substance abuse and mental-health issues, unstable housing/employment, limited supervised visitation, and a March 2017 arrest for drug paraphernalia.
Father has extensive criminal history; incarcerated at child’s birth, initially denied paternity and delayed testing until six months after birth, then sought contact; remained incarcerated with projected discharge in 2020.
DHS declined in-person visitation for the father based on child’s age, lack of bond, prison distance/conditions, father’s inexperience, criminal history, and length of sentence; juvenile court found DHS’s efforts reasonable.
Juvenile court terminated mother’s rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) and father’s rights under §§ 232.116(1)(b) and (h); both parents appealed, arguing termination was not in child’s best interests and asking for an additional six months; father additionally challenged statutory grounds and invoked the closeness exception.
On de novo review the Court of Appeals affirmed termination, finding reasonable reunification efforts, termination in the child’s best interests, the closeness exception inapplicable, and a six-month extension unwarranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State proved statutory grounds to terminate father’s rights (¶(b) and ¶(h))	State: father abandoned/failed to parent; incarceration and inaction support termination	Father: challenges proof and DHS reasonable-efforts showing	Court: affirmed termination under ¶(h); also affirmed on statutory grounds as supported by clear and convincing evidence
Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify father and child	State: DHS considered child’s age, no bond, prison limits, and offered reasonable services	Father: DHS failed to provide visitation and thus hindered bond	Court: DHS acted reasonably under circumstances; denial of visitation not unreasonable
Whether termination is in child’s best interests	State: child needs permanency; parents can’t provide safe, stable care	Parents: insist more time would allow treatment and bonding	Court: primary consideration is child’s safety and long-term needs; parents’ past performance predicts future; termination is in child’s best interests
Whether closeness exception (§ 232.116(3)(c)) or 6-month extension (§ 232.104(2)(b)) apply	Father: closeness exception because DHS blocked visitation; both parents: needed more time to stabilize	Parents: could improve with additional six months/residential treatment	Court: no close parent-child relationship exists; exception inapplicable; extension denied because removal need would likely persist after six months

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of de novo review and weight to juvenile court credibility findings)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (credibility and fact-finding principles in TPR review)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (best-interests framework for termination)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (reasonable-efforts requirement and urgency for child permanency)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (affirmation on any supported statutory ground)
In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (visitation controlled by child’s best interests)
In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (reasonable services for incarcerated parents—factors to consider)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (past parental performance as indicator of future care; permanency considerations)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (consequences of failing to challenge statutory grounds; permanency urgency)
In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170 (Iowa 1997) (policy against prolonged temporary foster care while parents get stable)