In the Interest of L.B., Minor Child, 970 N.W.2d 311

L.B., born 2014, lived largely with her mother; Father was in federal custody 2014–2020.
In 2019 DHS intervened after Mother assaulted L.B.’s grandmother and tested positive for meth; the juvenile court adjudicated L.B. CINA and closed the case in Nov. 2019 after placing L.B. in guardianship with the maternal grandmother (CINA 1).
Guardianship became contentious; the State filed a new CINA petition in June 2020 (CINA 2) and the county attorney filed a petition to terminate both parents’ rights three days later.
The juvenile court declined to adjudicate CINA 2 but relied on the prior CINA 1 adjudication to terminate Father’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f) and (g).
A divided court of appeals affirmed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
The Supreme Court held that a prior adjudication in a closed CINA proceeding cannot satisfy the § 232.116(1)(f) or (g) requirement that "the child has been adjudicated" for a termination in a later proceeding, reversed the juvenile court, vacated the court of appeals decision, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior, closed CINA adjudication can satisfy the statutory requirement that “the child has been adjudicated” for termination under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f) and (g) in a later proceeding	The State argued a prior CINA adjudication (CINA 1) is sufficient to meet the statute’s "has been adjudicated" requirement for termination in the subsequent proceeding	Father argued the statute requires an adjudication in the current proceeding; a closed prior adjudication cannot be used to support termination now	The Court held a prior closed CINA adjudication is insufficient; the child must be adjudicated CINA in the present proceeding before termination under (f) or (g) may be pursued

In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting present perfect tense in statutory context)
In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518 (Iowa 2020) (termination proceedings reviewed de novo)
In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (three-step termination analysis)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (State must prove termination elements by clear and convincing evidence)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental termination is a severe, often irreversible state action)
In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. 2004) (describing parental termination as the "death penalty" of civil proceedings)