In the Interest of P.C. and D.C., Minor Children, J.S., Mother, 16-0893

Background

Mother Jessica appealed termination of her parental rights to two children (P.C., b.2014; D.C., b.2012) following their removal in 2015 due to safety concerns in the home (domestic violence, supervision issues).
Children had previously been adjudicated in November 2014; father Samuel and other household members had a history of services noncompliance and restricted provider access to the home.
The juvenile court terminated Jessica’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (h) (2015); Jessica appealed arguing the State failed to prove statutory grounds and termination was not in the children’s best interests.
On de novo review, the appellate majority found the juvenile court’s written findings to be non‑specific and conclusory and therefore afforded limited deference.
The appellate court concluded the State failed to prove any statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §232.116(1)(d) (prior adjudication for physical abuse/neglect) authorizes termination	State: prior adjudications of related children involved domestic violence/neglect, so (d) applies	Jessica: no prior finding of nonaccidental physical injury required by (d) exists in the record	Held: (d) not proved—no prior finding of nonaccidental physical injury as required by J.S. and M.W.
Whether §232.116(1)(e) (lack of significant and meaningful contact during last 6 months) authorizes termination	State: Jessica failed to maintain contact/parental duties	Jessica: maintained weekly visits, provided gifts, complied with services, secured housing and counseling	Held: (e) not proved—evidence shows significant and meaningful contact and case plan compliance
Whether §232.116(1)(h) (child cannot be returned to parent at present) authorizes termination	State: Jessica’s continued relationship with Samuel and his instability endangers children	Jessica: has stable employment, housing, counseling, parenting progress; insufficient evidence Samuel poses material risk	Held: (h) not proved—insufficient evidence that returning children would cause adjudicatory harm
Standard of appellate review and weight to trial court credibility findings	State: defer to juvenile court credibility/findings	Jessica: challenges sufficiency and specificity of findings	Held: de novo review applies; appellate court may give measured deference but requires specific, nonconclusory findings—here findings were inadequate

Key Cases Cited

In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (three‑step termination analysis: grounds, best interests, exceptions)
In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (chapter 232 definition of physical abuse or neglect requires nonaccidental physical injury)
In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (clarifies limitation on §232.116(1)(d) where no nonaccidental physical injury finding exists)
In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737 (Iowa 2011) (de novo appellate review in termination cases)
In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (clear and convincing evidence standard defined)
In re A.R., 865 N.W.2d 619 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (need for prior adjudication proof to evaluate offered services)
Z.T.D. v. State, 478 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (economic hardship alone insufficient for termination)
In re J.R., 478 N.W.2d 409 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (requiring showing of adjudicatory harm to return child)
In re D.P., 465 N.W.2d 313 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (clear and convincing requirement for showing risk of harm)
In re Marriage of Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420 (Iowa 1984) (deference to trial court credibility findings explained)