In the Interest of K.J., T.J., L.J., and I.J., Minor Children, L.J., Father, N.D., Mother
17-1272
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Four children (born 2003, 2005, 2013, 2015) were removed after reports of parental methamphetamine use and a founded denial of critical care as to the father; children adjudicated CINA in Oct. 2015 and removed from mother in Jan. 2016 after her drug use and allowing father unsupervised contact.
- DHS provided intensive services; both parents participated intermittently in substance-abuse treatment but long-standing drug use, relapse evidence, and relationship dysfunction persisted through the proceedings.
- Father had multiple positive meth tests, criminal charges, probation violations, and multiple residential treatment episodes; by the May 5, 2017 termination hearing the court found controlled-environment success insufficient to show present sobriety/stability.
- Mother repeatedly prioritized her relationship with father, lacked insight into his drug use, and at times used methamphetamine at his request; DHS had ongoing concerns about her ability to protect the children and unresolved mental-health and relationship issues.
- The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights to the four children under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f) (older children) and (h) (younger child); parents appealed, raising sufficiency of proof as to returnability, requests for additional time, bonding/best-interest arguments, and for mother, a request to reopen the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved under §232.116(1)(f)/(h) that children cannot be returned at present (father) | Father: drug use alone insufficient to show present harm; children could be returned if he achieves sobriety | State: history of long-term substance abuse, recent positive tests, relapse history show children cannot be safely returned now | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence children cannot be returned to father at present |
| Whether father should receive additional 6‑month extension for reunification | Father: needs more time to achieve sobriety and reunify | State: father already received an extension and continued to test positive; further extension unlikely to change outcome | Affirmed denial of further extension |
| Whether State proved under §232.116(1)(f)/(h) that children cannot be returned at present (mother) | Mother: she will not stay with father if he relapses and would not expose children to adjudicatory harm | State: mother repeatedly prioritized relationship, lacked insight, participated in drug use, and could not protect children if father relapsed | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence children cannot be returned to mother at present |
| Whether court abused discretion by denying motion to reopen record to include newborn’s CINA findings; and whether termination is in children’s best interests (mother) | Mother: new child’s adjudication and post-hearing events should be considered; termination not in children’s best interests | State: motion to reopen not preserved; termination decision concerns conditions at termination hearing date; children thriving in foster placement | Affirmed — motion to reopen not preserved/denied; termination found in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (de novo appellate review standard for termination appeals)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (appellate review limits: issues not raised below need not be reviewed)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (error preservation applies to CINA and termination appeals)