In the Interest of O.C., Minor Child
21-0583
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 3, 2021Background:
- Child born in 2017; DHS filed a CINA petition in 2018 after concerns the child was underweight/flat in affect, exposed to persons with founded sexual‑abuse assessments, and parents were arrested with the child in the car.
- Parents had extensive prior DHS involvement since 2010, including prior terminations and founded sexual‑abuse findings; the child was missing until 2019 and later located in Colorado before being placed in Iowa foster care.
- At removal the child exhibited attachment deficits, developmental delays, and night terrors; the child subsequently made marked progress in a single foster home.
- Parents largely denied the basis for intervention, delayed or avoided services, lived in unsafe conditions, and remained enmeshed in a risky relationship; the father’s intellectual disability was raised later in the case.
- The juvenile court adjudicated the child in need of assistance, found DHS made reasonable reunification efforts, denied a six‑month extension, and terminated both parents’ rights; both parents appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grounds for termination / reasonable efforts under §232.116(1)(h) | Parents: State failed to prove statutory grounds and did not make reasonable reunification efforts. | State: Clear and convincing evidence showed child could not be returned and DHS made reasonable efforts. | Affirmed: record supports (h) and DHS made reasonable efforts. |
| ADA/Section 504 accommodations (Father) | Father: DHS failed to provide appropriate accommodations for his intellectual disability. | State: Services and accommodations were offered; lack of progress was due to his nonengagement and delays. | Rejected: court found delays/denial, not lack of accommodations, and termination appropriate. |
| Best interests of the child | Parents: Termination is not in child’s best interests; they love child and have made late progress. | State: Child thrived in foster home and needs permanency after long case and developmental harm. | Affirmed: termination was in child’s best interests given child’s improvement and need for permanency. |
| Six‑month extension request | Parents: Need additional time to complete services and reunify. | State: No basis to conclude the need for removal would be resolved in six months; case already prolonged. | Denied: court could not find removal reasons would be resolved within six months. |
| Permissive bond exception (Mother) | Mother: Strong parental bond; severance would be detrimental. | State: Child’s need for permanency and history of harm outweighs bond. | Denied: court declined to invoke bond exception. |
| Constitutional claims (Mother) | Mother: Equal protection and due process violations in proceedings. | State: Process was fair, with continuances and clear findings; delays were from parents’ noncooperation. | Denied: court found no constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (appellate court may affirm termination if any statutory ground is proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (State must show reasonable reunification efforts as part of proving child cannot be safely returned)
- In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521 (Iowa 2019) (reasonable efforts include timely permanency planning efforts)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (recognizes permissive exception based on parent‑child bond)