In the Interest of K.S. and M.J., Minor Children
21-0091
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 4, 2021Background
- April 15, 2019: mother intentionally rammed her vehicle into her paramour’s vehicle with both children in the back seat; arrested and charged with domestic-abuse assault (intent to inflict serious injury) and two counts of child endangerment; no-contact order initially imposed.
- Children placed with maternal relatives (grandmother, then great‑grandmother); DHS obtained temporary removal and children were adjudicated CINA; reunification plan required housing, mental‑health evaluation, parenting education, probation compliance, and assaultive‑behavior treatment.
- Mother received a deferred judgment and two‑year probation but repeatedly violated probation, incurred new arrests/warrants, missed therapy and parenting requirements, and had inconsistent visits; she later began services only shortly before/after termination petition was filed.
- DHS filed a termination petition August 5, 2020; trial occurred Sept. 3, 2020 with additional evidence taken Dec. 4, 2020; juvenile court found 19 months of services with ongoing criminality and unresolved domestic‑violence/assaultive behavior issues.
- Children exhibited aggressive/regressive behaviors after visits; visits remained supervised; foster placement was available, children were adoptable, and the foster family was willing to adopt if relatives were not an option.
- Trial court terminated mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f) and (h); appellate court affirmed, concluding statutory period exceeded and mother had not addressed assaultive/domestic‑violence issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination under §232.116(1)(f)/(h) were proven (child out of custody statutory period and cannot be returned at present) | Mother concedes statutory period elapsed but contends children could be returned “at the present time.” | Mother failed to complete assaultive‑behavior treatment or meaningfully address domestic violence; compliance was recent and insufficient after prolonged noncompliance. | Affirmed: statutory grounds met; mother had not addressed underlying assaultive/domestic‑violence issues, so children could not be returned. |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests (permanency vs. reunification) | Termination will harm children; no identified permanent placement; argues court should not assume termination improves situation. | Children’s safety and need for long‑term stability favor termination; foster home is suitable and willing to adopt, and statutory policy favors permanency after statutory period. | Affirmed: termination appropriate to secure permanency and protect children’s safety and long‑term needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review: de novo; juvenile court credibility findings given weight)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (short‑term changes right before termination are insufficient after long period of noncompliance)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (court cannot withhold permanency after State proves statutory ground for termination)