In the Interest of M.M., Minor Child, A.M., Father, 17-0925

Child M.M. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) in Oct. 2014 and removed to foster care in Apr. 2015; case remained open through termination proceedings.
Father had intermittent participation in services (drug testing, substance-abuse treatment, parenting, batterer’s education); long history of substance use, criminal charges, jail, and domestic-violence concerns.
Father began methadone treatment only in Oct. 2016 after prior delays; he admitted placement of the child with him was "a long ways off" and said three more months of stability might permit reunification.
Juvenile court found recurring cycles of stability and regression by both parents, lack of sustained sobriety or safe, stable housing, and ongoing risk to the child; foster parents were willing to adopt.
Juvenile court terminated father's parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) (child three or under removed six of last 12 months cannot be returned at time of hearing) and found none of the § 232.116(3) exceptions (including closeness of bond) applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether the State proved under § 232.116(1)(h) that the child could not be returned at the time of hearing	State: Yes—clear and convincing evidence of current inability to return the child due to ongoing substance abuse, instability, and domestic violence	Father: Contends State failed to prove the child could not be returned now	Held: Affirmed—father admitted placement was "a long ways off," and record showed no sustained stability; statutory element satisfied.
Whether father should be granted additional time for rehabilitative services	State: Additional time would harm child's need for permanency; father had ample prior opportunities and delayed participation	Father: Requests more time to complete treatment and stabilize (said 3 months would suffice)	Held: Denied—court emphasized statutory timeframes, child's need for permanency, and father's prior delays and inconsistent engagement.
Whether termination should be avoided under § 232.116(3)(c) due to close parent-child bond	State: Bond does not outweigh risks; child bonded to foster family and adoption preferable for stability	Father: Argues strong bond with child makes termination detrimental	Held: Denied—the court found continuing reunification would cause confusion and stress; none of the § 232.116(3) exceptions applied.

In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review and timing reference for "at the present time")
In re A.M.S., 419 N.W.2d 723 (Iowa 1988) (definition of harm justifying CINA adjudication)
In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (probable harm need not be same as initial removal reason)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (cannot deprive child of permanency by hoping parent will mature)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (child's safety and need for a permanent home central to best interest)
In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1987) (court may not suspend childhood for parent's rehabilitation)
In re D.J.R., 454 N.W.2d 838 (Iowa 1990) (best interests often not served by keeping child in "parentless limbo")
In re Kester, 228 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa 1975) (refusing to "gamble with the children’s future")
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (patience for parents is built into statutory scheme; cannot wait past statutory periods)
In re M.W., 458 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 1990) (legislative determination favoring termination when statutory conditions met)
In re C.S., 776 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (children's rights and needs can outweigh parental rights)