In the Interest of M.D., Minor Child
21-1690
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2022Background:
- M.D., born August 2020, was removed shortly after birth when the umbilical cord tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines.
- At the termination hearing (about one year later) the mother had not completed substance‑abuse treatment, missed 34 of 37 drug tests, had three December 2020 positive tests, and admitted meth use in June 2021.
- M.D. has serious ongoing medical needs and had spent less than one month in the mother’s care; most caregiving and medical management occurred with others.
- The mother had supervised twice‑weekly visits and frequent phone contact; witnesses described a good relationship between mother and child.
- Juvenile court terminated parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) (and (g) noted), father(s) did not participate; mother appealed challenging statutory grounds, best interests, and the closeness exception.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §232.116(1)(h) was proved (child cannot be returned now) | Mother says she could care for M.D. after making additional changes | At hearing mother remained noncompliant, using meth, not in treatment, missed tests — facts at hearing control | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence M.D. could not be returned at time of hearing |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests | Mother points to strong bond and good supervised parenting | Child needs consistent, reliable caregiving for serious medical needs and stability | Affirmed: child’s needs favor termination |
| Whether closeness exception (§232.116(3)(c)) applies | Mother contends closeness would make termination detrimental | Mother failed to show termination would disadvantage child enough to overcome her inability to provide | Exception not met; termination affirmed |
| Preservation of challenge to statutory ground | Mother broadly challenges statutory grounds | Court questioned preservation because mother argued future potential rather than present condition, but court considered the merits | Court considered §232.116(1)(h) and affirmed based on facts at hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 2021) (de novo review of termination and three‑step termination framework)
- Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa 1996) (appellate review confined to issues raised and preserved)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) ("at the present time" means time of termination hearing)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (child safety and need for permanent home are primary in best‑interest analysis)
- In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (children cannot wait for responsible, consistent parenting)
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (parent bears burden to establish exceptions to termination)