In the Interest of S.W., Minor Child, E.W., Father, T.A., Mother, 17-0297

S.W., born May 2014, was removed from parents’ care in Sept. 2015 after methamphetamine was found in the home and S.W. tested positive; child placed with foster family that had adopted her half-siblings.
Father had extensive criminal history, was incarcerated following a burglary plea with release not expected before Feb. 2018; he was subject to a no-contact protective order and had limited contact with S.W. (one prison visit in May 2016).
Mother’s parental rights were terminated on multiple statutory grounds; she appealed conditionally (only if father’s termination were reversed) and did not challenge alternate grounds or best-interest findings.
DHS provided reunification efforts but faced barriers: prison did not readily provide required classes, protective order prevented visits, and father denied domestic violence allegations and had not completed batterer’s/anger-management programming.
District court terminated father’s rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h); father appealed, arguing statutory grounds not met, best interests not shown, unreasonable reunification efforts, and that the court erred in denying his motion to reopen the record.

Issue	Father (Appellant) Argument	State / Respondent Argument	Held
Whether statutory grounds for termination were proved by clear and convincing evidence	Father contended grounds were not met and sought extension, not termination	State argued statutory grounds supported termination and extension not warranted	Court affirmed termination; multiple grounds supported termination and record showed children could not be returned when heard
Whether termination was in child’s best interests	Father argued termination premature; sought more time to reunify	State and GAL argued foster placement provided permanency, bonding, and sibling continuity	Court held termination was in S.W.’s best interests due to bond with foster family and need for permanency
Whether DHS made reasonable reunification efforts	Father argued DHS failed to provide services and visits while he was incarcerated	State showed efforts to coordinate prison-based services and explained no-contact order and logistical limits on visits	Court found DHS efforts reasonable under circumstances
Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to reopen record	Father argued circumstances materially changed post-hearing (discharge, housing, completion of courses) and justified reopening	State/GAL opposed; court cited delay and child’s need for permanency	Court did not abuse discretion; reopening would further delay permanency and child could not be returned then

In re J.J.A., 580 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 1998) (refusing to consider issues not properly raised on appeal)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (de novo review of TPR and when multiple statutory grounds exist appellate court may affirm on any supported ground)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (children could not be returned at time of termination supports §232.116(1)(h))
In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (imprisonment does not absolve DHS duty but services must be reasonable under circumstances)
In re J.R.H., 358 N.W.2d 311 (Iowa 1984) (trial court has broad discretion to reopen evidence)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (child’s safety and need for permanent home are defining elements of best interest)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (§232.116(3) permissive exceptions are not mandatory)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (court must consider exceptions in §232.116(3) before terminating parental rights)