In the Interest of M.W. and Z.W., Minor Children, R.W., Mother
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 28
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Infant L.W. died in April 2014; autopsy found malnutrition/dehydration due to neglect (homicide). CPS removed siblings M.W. (b. 2013) and Z.W. (b. 2012) the same day and placed them with nonrelative foster parents.
- Investigators found the parents’ apartment in squalid condition; hair tests showed both children had THC metabolites; L.W. tested positive for multiple substances. Mother R.W. acknowledged substance issues and a history of domestic violence by the children’s father, M.D.W.
- R.W. received substance‑abuse and mental‑health evaluations and participated in outpatient treatment; providers expressed concern about co‑dependency, lack of maternal interest, and questionable prospects for reunification.
- Juvenile court adjudicated M.W. and Z.W. as children in need of assistance (CINA) and later terminated R.W.’s parental rights to both children; the court’s final order applied Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) to M.W. but not to Z.W., although the opinion stated all alleged grounds were proven for both.
- Court of appeals affirmed termination as to M.W. but reversed as to Z.W. The State sought further review; the Iowa Supreme Court conducted de novo review, affirmed termination for M.W., reversed the court of appeals and affirmed termination for Z.W., and upheld the juvenile court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (R.W.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) for M.W. and Z.W. | § 232.116(1)(h) elements met: children ≤3, adjudicated CINA, removed ≥6 months, cannot be safely returned; clear & convincing evidence supports termination. | R.W. argues she made progress in treatment and visitation; termination improper as to Z.W. because juvenile court did not expressly apply § 232.116(1)(h) to Z.W. | Court held § 232.116(1)(h) satisfied by clear & convincing evidence for both children; termination affirmed for both. |
| Whether termination is supported under §§ 232.116(1)(d) and (i) (abuse/neglect grounds) | State alleged prior adjudication and persistent conditions or significant risk supporting (d) and (i). | R.W. contested that children suffered nonaccidental physical injury and that evidence was insufficient for (d)/(i). | Court and court of appeals agreed record lacked evidence of nonaccidental physical injury; (d) and (i) not proved. |
| Whether appellate courts may affirm on a ground not relied on by the juvenile court without a Rule 1.904(2) motion or cross‑appeal | State urged affirmance on § 232.116(1)(h) for Z.W.; it had argued this ground below. | R.W. contended the court of appeals should not have considered § 232.116(1)(h) for Z.W. because juvenile court did not apply it to Z.W. in the decree and State did not move to amend or cross‑appeal. | Supreme Court held a prevailing party may raise an alternative ground for affirmance on appeal without cross‑appeal if it was raised in the trial court; overruled contrary appellate precedent to that extent. |
| Best‑interest and statutory exceptions under § 232.116(2)–(3) | Termination is in children’s best interests: stable placement with maternal aunt, children integrated, prospective adoptive placement; no exception warrants preserving rights. | R.W. emphasized bonding and progress in treatment; urged courts to apply permissive exceptions to preserve relationship. | Court held § 232.116(2) factors favor termination and no § 232.116(3) exception compelled preserving parental rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of de novo review and three‑step termination analysis)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (clear‑and‑convincing evidence requirement and appellate review deference)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (affirmance on any supported statutory ground when multiple grounds alleged)
- State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2008) (appellate rule: affirm if any proper basis supports trial court’s ruling)
- Johnston Equip. Corp. v. Indus. Indem., 489 N.W.2d 13 (Iowa 1992) (prevailing party may save judgment on appeal without cross‑appeal)