In the Interest of O.N. and A.N., Minor Children, J.N., Mother
17-0918
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Mother Jessau has two children (O.N., A.N.); DHS involvement began when O.N. was six weeks old after domestic violence and safety concerns.
- Children were removed multiple times for domestic violence exposure, mother’s mental-health crises, and substance abuse; placements included relatives and foster care.
- Mother repeatedly resumed contact with a violent father (Brian) and a roommate who supplied prescription drugs; children were found unsupervised with medication accessible.
- Mother’s participation in treatment was sporadic; she had multiple positive drug screens for methamphetamine and recent admitted use; housing and employment were unstable.
- Mother engaged in hostile, threatening, and boundary-crossing conduct toward DHS/FSRP workers that interfered with visitation and casework.
- Juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f); mother appealed, challenging statutory sufficiency, best-interest finding, and application of permissive exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jessau) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of §232.116(1)(f) ground (cannot return) | Jessau argued the evidence did not show children could not be returned now | State argued clear and convincing evidence showed appreciable risk due to unresolved substance abuse, untreated mental health, unstable housing/employment, risky associates, and hostile behavior toward workers | Affirmed: record supports (1)(f) — children could not be returned without appreciable risk |
| Best interests of the children | Jessau argued strong bond and parenting strengths weigh against termination | State argued children’s safety, stability, and thriving in foster care outweigh mother’s late/insufficient progress | Affirmed: termination is in children’s best interest; need for permanency outweighs mother’s claims |
| Application of permissive exceptions, §232.116(3) | Jessau urged exceptions should preclude termination | State argued exceptions are discretionary and not warranted given lack of bond, safety concerns, and children’s stable placement | Affirmed: court declined to apply permissive exceptions |
| Additional claims (six-month extension; reasonable efforts) | Jessau asked for six more months and contended State failed reasonable-efforts obligation | State contended claims were insufficiently developed on appeal | Not reached on merits: appellate review declined as claims not sufficiently developed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review and statutory framework for TPR)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (State must prove statutory ground and best interest)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (child cannot be returned if exposed to risk amounting to a new CINA adjudication)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (drug addiction can render parent unable to care for children)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (court will not "gamble with the children’s future" by delaying permanency)