In the Interest of R.M., Minor Child, T.B., Mother, I.M., Father, 17-0573

R.M., a Seminole Nation member, was removed from parents’ custody (June–Oct 2015) and has lived with maternal grandmother since ~1 month old; adjudicated CINA December 2015.
DHS opened the case for parental illegal drug use and domestic violence; parents admitted ongoing substance use, unstable housing/employment, and incomplete treatment/evaluations.
Parents never progressed beyond supervised, sporadic visits and conceded R.M. could not be returned at the termination hearing.
Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h); Iowa Supreme Court remanded for ICWA-related expert cultural testimony.
A Seminole Nation caseworker testified there was no cultural bias, tribe supported termination and placement with grandmother, and return would risk severe harm; juvenile court reissued termination order.
Appellate court conducted de novo review and affirmed termination, denying parents’ requests for additional time or application of permissive exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory grounds for termination were proved under §232.116(1)(h)	State: Child <3, adjudicated CINA, removed >6 months, cannot be returned — grounds satisfied	Parents: State failed to make required ICWA "active efforts" to reunify	Affirmed; statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence; parents forfeited active-efforts claim by not preserving it post-remand
Whether termination is in child’s best interests under §232.116(2)	State: Child needs permanency; grandmother placement is stable and culturally appropriate	Parents: Termination not best because of parental bond and placement with relative	Affirmed; best interests favor termination due to parental instability, lack of progress, and child’s stable caregiving/adoptive plan
Whether permissive exceptions under §232.116(3) (relative placement or parent-child bond) bar termination	Parents: Relative custody and parental bond weigh against termination	State: Exceptions are discretionary and not applicable given limited bond and need for permanency	Affirmed; court declined to apply §232.116(3) exceptions—child’s need for permanency controls
Whether a six-month extension under §232.104(2)(b) should be granted	Parents: Need more time to remedy deficiencies and reunify	State: Parents made insufficient progress; extension unlikely to resolve removal need within six months	Affirmed; extension denied because removal need would likely persist after six months

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard for de novo review and three-step termination analysis)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (weight of juvenile court findings; permissive nature of §232.116(3))
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (affirming termination on any supported statutory ground)
In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (ICWA higher burden when Indian child continued custody risks serious harm)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (past parental performance indicative of future care; permanency priority)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (children should not wait indefinitely for parents to become stable)
In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170 (Iowa 1997) (relative willingness to care does not automatically preclude termination)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (emphasis on child’s need for permanency)
Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issue preservation rule on appeal)
In re J.D.B., 584 N.W.2d 577 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (ICWA does not preempt state error-preservation rules)