In the Interest of L.M., Minor Child
21-0636
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- L.M. born Jan 2020 with illegal substance in her system; a founded assessment was entered against the mother.
- At six months L.M. suffered severe head injuries (subdural hematoma, multiple retinal hemorrhages); child-abuse assessment founded against the mother; safety plan and supervised relative care followed.
- Mother violated the safety plan, tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana, and L.M. was removed and adjudicated a CINA; child placed with a relative and has remained there.
- The State petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights; at hearing mother continued to deny any other cause for the injuries, had ongoing substance‑use and mental‑health problems, and visits remained supervised.
- Father had limited visitation, no approved home study, pending sentencing and recent guilty pleas on substance‑related charges; juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h) and (l), denied a six‑month extension, and the parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to terminate mother under §232.116(1)(h) | Mother: record insufficient to support termination on the grounds relied upon | State: clear and convincing evidence mother could not safely parent now—refusal to acknowledge cause of injury, ongoing substance abuse/mental‑health issues, supervised visits | Affirmed; clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §232.116(1)(h) |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests | Parents: termination not in L.M.’s best interest; e.g., father claims no safety concerns and stays in contact | State: child’s safety and need for stable, long‑term placement favor termination; child bonded to relative, parents made insufficient progress | Affirmed; termination found to be in child’s best interests |
| Whether a six‑month extension for reunification was warranted | Parents: ask for additional six months to address issues and pursue reunification | State: parents unlikely to remedy problems in six months; child should not wait indefinitely for stability | Affirmed denial of extension; court concluded removal need would likely persist and extension was not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (standard and scope of appellate review in termination proceedings)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (State must prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (primary concern is child’s best interests)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (assessment of returnability at time of termination hearing)
- In re L.M.F., 490 N.W.2d 66 (Iowa 1992) (when grounds proven, termination generally aligns with child’s best interests)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (children should not be asked to wait indefinitely for parental stability)
- In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (considerations in weighing extensions and child’s need for permanency)
- In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 2014) (urgency required in achieving permanency for children)
- In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (court may deny extension when little evidence exists circumstances will change)