In the Interest of M.S., Minor Child, T.B.-w., Father
2016 Iowa App. LEXIS 1147
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Infant M.S. tested positive for THC at birth in June 2015; mother failed drug-treatment steps and had no contact after November 2015.
- Thomas was later identified by DNA as the father; at case opening he was 21, employed, living with his mother, with a history of cannabis use.
- IDHS required a case plan (anger management, abstain from cannabis, drug testing); Thomas complied with housing, employment, visitation, and anger classes but continued to test positive for THC.
- The juvenile court terminated Thomas’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) and (i) after a May 2016 hearing held ~5 months after IDHS first contacted Thomas.
- The social worker and records documented consistent, positive supervised visits; no witness observed Thomas caring for the child while impaired or identified safety concerns.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the State failed to prove statutory adjudicatory grounds or best-interest justification by clear and convincing evidence; concurrence questioned whether the child was ever "returned" to Thomas’s custody; a dissent would have affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved a diagnosable substance-related disorder and danger (Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(i)) | State: Thomas’s continued positive THC tests and history show a substance-related disorder and danger warranting termination | Thomas: No medical evidence of a diagnosable disorder; social worker observed no safety risk while he cared for the child | Reversed — State failed to show a diagnosable substance disorder or danger by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the child could not be returned to Thomas’s custody (Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)) — nexus between cannabis use and adjudicatory harm | State: Continued drug use and anger issues meant child couldn’t be safely returned at hearing | Thomas: Records show safe home, stable employment, consistent caring visits; no nexus between cannabis use and appreciable risk to child | Reversed — State did not establish nexus or appreciable risk; termination unsupported by §232.116(1)(h) |
| Whether termination was in M.S.’s best interests (Iowa Code § 232.116(2)) | State: Need for permanency and father’s incomplete progress support termination | Thomas: He can meet child’s physical and emotional needs; bonded relationship; no safety concerns | Reversed — State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence termination was in child’s best interests |
| Whether any statutory exceptions or countervailing considerations preclude termination (§ 232.116(3), closeness of bond) | State: Permanency concerns and ongoing substance/anger issues outweigh bond | Thomas: Strong, documented parent–child bond and demonstrated caregiving argue against termination | Held for Thomas — closeness/ bond favors denying termination; termination would be unjust |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest; State must meet a heightened burden)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest; State must show unfitness to terminate)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (statutory framework: prove statutory grounds, best interests, then consider exceptions)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (child cannot be returned if return would expose child to harm amounting to a new CINA adjudication)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (drug use alone does not automatically constitute adjudicatory harm)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (time-of-hearing standard for whether children can be safely returned)
- In re C. and K., 322 N.W.2d 76 (Iowa 1982) (statute must be interpreted to require proof of harm to satisfy due process)