In the Interest of R.M. and E.P., Minor Children, T.P., Mother, 17-0174

Mother (Tara) has profound cognitive and adaptive impairments (IQ ~60; adaptive functioning in bottom 1%) documented by testing and multiple service providers.
Children R.M. (born 2013) and E.P. (born 2015) were placed in foster care after concerns about Tara’s ability to care for them, unexplained bruising to R.M., and a founded abuse report; injuries ceased after removal.
IDHS provided extensive services, supports, and safety plans; Tara received housing assistance and SSDI but never progressed to unsupervised or overnight visitation.
Service providers testified the children could not be returned without ongoing, near-constant supervision; Tara associated with people who posed safety risks while children were in her care.
Juvenile court terminated Tara’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h); Tara appealed arguing insufficient statutory proof and that termination was not in the children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) (child cannot be returned presently without risk of adjudicatory harm)	State: Tara’s severe cognitive deficits, inability to internalize parenting skills, history of unexplained injuries and failure to comply with safety plans create appreciable risk of harm	Tara: State failed to prove statutory ground; she made efforts and received services	Held: Affirmed. Evidence showed appreciable risk of adjudicatory harm and inability to safely care for children without constant supervision
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests	State: Children need permanency; they are thriving in foster care and bonded to foster mother	Tara: Termination is not necessary; she loves her children and attempted to participate in services	Held: Affirmed. Court found permanency and children’s welfare favored termination; no protective statutory factors justified preserving parental rights

In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (parental cognitive limitations can support termination when they impair child’s safety absent continuous DHS supervision)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (framework for best-interest analysis in termination proceedings)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (clear-and-convincing standard required in parental termination to protect fundamental liberty interest)
In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (child cannot be returned if appreciable risk of adjudicatory harm exists)
In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (clarifies appreciable risk standard and evidentiary burden)