In the Interest of S.W. and S.W., Minor Children, M.M., Father, L.W., Mother
16-1958
Iowa Ct. App.Jan 25, 2017Background
- DHS became involved July 2015 after repeated domestic-violence incidents between parents; older child removed then and adjudicated CINA. Mother was pregnant with younger child at that time.
- Mother drove a vehicle at the father at ~35 mph while he held the older child; that incident precipitated removal. Parents resumed contact and multiple additional domestic-violence incidents occurred after a protective-order restriction was lifted.
- Younger child born late 2015; removed from home Feb 2016 and adjudicated CINA April 2016. Both children have remained in the same foster home and are bonded to foster parents who seek to adopt.
- The State petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights to each child (petitions filed July–August 2016); combined termination hearing in Oct 2016; juvenile court terminated parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d), (h), and (i).
- Mother appealed contesting sufficiency of evidence that children could not be returned; father did not contest grounds but requested additional time for reunification.
- Trial court and appellate court found parents continued domestic-violence conduct, limited compliance with services, and unwillingness to separate; concluded children could not safely be returned and that termination served children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows children cannot be returned to mother under §232.116(1)(h) | State: mother’s history of domestic violence, lack of meaningful behavior change, and continued relationship with father make return unsafe | Mother: she has parenting skills and can meet children’s needs; challenges sufficiency on inability-to-return element | Court: Affirmed termination under §232.116(1)(h); evidence shows continued domestic violence, lack of change, and ongoing risk to children |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests | State: children need safety, permanency, and are bonded to foster family wanting to adopt | Mother: termination not in children’s best interests (argues for reunification) | Court: Termination is in children’s best interests due to safety and need for permanent home |
| Whether father should get additional time for reunification despite proven grounds | Father: requests more time, cites limited resources and need to prove fitness | State: granting more time would delay permanency and pose risk given father’s ongoing involvement with mother and domestic-violence history | Court: Denied additional time; affirmed termination to avoid prolonging instability for children |
| Whether appellate standard supports reversal | Mother/father: challenge findings (mother on sufficiency; father on remedy) | State: trial findings supported by record; de novo review gives weight to juvenile court findings | Court: Under de novo review, affirmed juvenile court’s findings and termination order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (standard of review in TPR appeals is de novo but juvenile-court findings are given weight)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (termination may be affirmed on any proven statutory ground)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (children’s safety and need for permanency are primary considerations in best-interest analysis)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (emphasizing child’s safety and need for a permanent home)
- In re R.L., 541 N.W.2d 900 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (termination preferred over long-term foster care)
- In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1987) (children’s development cannot be postponed while parents attempt to resolve problems)
- In re R.J., 436 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 1989) (court may deny extended reunification efforts once statutory period has passed)