In the Interest of N.M. and J.B., Minor Children, B.B., Mother, 17-0860

Mother had prior DHS involvement and parental rights previously terminated to two older children due to unsafe home, supervision failures, and domestic-violence-related relationships.
J.B. was removed after mother left him unsupervised as an infant and exposed him to domestic violence; mother consented to removal and J.B. was adjudicated CINA.
N.M. was removed at birth for ongoing safety concerns and later adjudicated CINA and placed with DHS.
At the termination hearing both children were under three, had been removed for the statutorily required period, and visits with mother remained supervised.
Service providers found mother made little progress over several years: inconsistent attendance, inadequate parenting skills (requiring prompting to feed/change), inability to keep children safe during visits, ongoing unstable/abusive relationships, and spotty mental-health treatment.
Juvenile court terminated parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(g) and (h); mother appealed and sought more time to remedy deficiencies.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §232.116(1)(h) (children ≤3, CINA, removed ≥6 months, cannot be returned at present)	Mother contended State failed to prove grounds for termination	State argued statutory elements were satisfied and children could not safely be returned now	Affirmed: record supports (h); mother unable to safely parent at time of hearing
Whether termination is in children’s best interests	Mother sought preservation of parental relationship and more time	State urged permanency due to safety concerns and mother’s lack of progress	Affirmed: children’s safety and need for permanency weigh for termination
Whether statutory exceptions (e.g., §232.116(3)(c) closeness of relationship; §232.116(3)(a) relative custody) bar termination	Mother argued closeness of bond and possibility of relative custody make termination detrimental/unnecessary	State argued no strong parent-child bond (children were infants or never cared for by mother) and no relative had legal custody	Affirmed: exceptions inapplicable—no established bond and no relative legal custody
Whether additional time should be granted to reunify	Mother argued more time would allow her to develop parenting skills	State argued mother had years of services with little improvement and further delay harms children	Affirmed: court declined additional time; further delay contrary to children’s best interests

In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (de novo review standard for termination appeals)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (requirement of clear and convincing evidence for termination and meaning of “at the present time”)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (weight given to juvenile court fact findings)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (best-interest analysis and applicability of statutory exceptions)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (child safety as a defining element of best-interest inquiry)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (courts should not delay permanency by hoping parent will eventually be able to parent)
In re D.J.R., 454 N.W.2d 838 (Iowa 1990) (importance of avoiding "parentless limbo")
In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1987) (emphasis on fixing custody quickly to provide permanency)