In the Interest of K.M. and A.E., Minor Children
21-0460
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Mother (A.C.) is parent of A.E. (b. 2011) and K.M. (b. 2015); children removed Nov. 18, 2019 after report A.E. was sexually abused by a friend of the mother and concerns mother used controlled substances while caring for the children.
- Children adjudicated CINA Feb. 25, 2020; mother arrested same day on sexual-exploitation/prostitution-related charges, pled guilty to prostitution and was placed on probation.
- Mother tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamines (Dec. 2019) and again June 2020; engaged in intermittent substance-abuse treatment (inpatient Dec. 2020; outpatient Jan. 2021) but later quit; admitted use of synthetic marijuana Jan. 27, 2021.
- Visitation was intermittent (five visits in seven months before hearing) after an initial two-month restriction caused by a mistaken sealed no-contact order; mother last saw children end of January 2021.
- State filed termination petition Nov. 20, 2020; termination hearing Mar. 19, 2021; district court terminated mother’s rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(e) and (f), found termination in children’s best interests, and denied a six-month extension request.
- Mother appealed (appeal initially one day late; Iowa Supreme Court granted delayed appeal); Court of Appeals affirmed termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate under §232.116(1)(f) | Mother acknowledged not ready to reunify but argued progress in treatment and thus termination not supported | State: clear-and-convincing evidence children could not be returned at time of hearing due to ongoing substance abuse, criminal conduct, lack of insight into children’s trauma | Court: Affirmed termination under §232.116(1)(f) — statutory elements met; children could not be returned at hearing |
| Best interests of the children | Mother: engaged in treatment, employed, visited, bond with children — termination not in children’s best interests | State: children suffered profound trauma, need stable home; mother lacked stability and insight; continued substance use risk | Court: Termination is in children’s best interests; permanency outweighs hope parent will improve |
| Exception for closeness of parent-child relationship (§232.116(3)(c)) | Mother: close bond with children — termination would be detrimental | State: closeness does not outweigh safety, stability, and healing needs | Court: Exception not shown by clear and convincing evidence; discretion to deny applied; termination allowed |
| Six-month extension for reunification (§§232.104, 232.117) | Mother: requested additional six months; claimed recent progress and abstinence since Jan. 27, 2021 | State: mother unlikely to resolve issues in six months; children removed >16 months and mother no closer to reunification | Court: Denied extension — no likelihood need for removal would end in six months |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (de novo review of termination proceedings)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (State must prove termination allegations by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (best interests of the child are primary concern)
- In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (affirmance permitted if any statutory ground supports termination)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (§232.116(1)(f) requires evaluating returnability at time of hearing)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (court cannot indefinitely delay permanency hoping parent will improve)
- In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019) (§232.116(3) factors are permissive and discretionary)
- In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (same: permissive nature of §232.116(3) exceptions)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (courts may consider unique circumstances when applying §232.116(3) factors)