In the Interest of S.B., A.B., Z.B., A.B., and D.B., Minor Children, J.S., Mother, M.B., Father, 17-0221

Five siblings (ages ~7–12) were removed in Aug 2015 after parents Josie and Matthew used methamphetamine and the family became homeless.
Children placed with grandparents in Atlantic, Iowa; DHS provided services including transportation assistance and visitation arrangements.
Parents have documented substance-use and mental-health disorders; both made only minimal, inconsistent progress in treatment and visitation during the proceedings.
Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights in Feb 2017. Matthew appealed challenging paragraph (f); court also relied on paragraph (l) for Matthew. Josie appealed paragraph (f).
Trial court found clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned at time of hearing, DHS made reasonable efforts, and termination was in children’s best interests; this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence showed children could not be returned to parents at time of hearing (Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f))	Josie: now sober ~10 months, living in a suitable home, pursuing mental-health treatment — so children could be returned; Matthew: challenged (f) but focused on appeals	State: parents lacked sustained stability; missed visits; violated release conditions; insufficient treatment progress	Affirmed. Court found parents had not achieved necessary stability; clear and convincing evidence children could not be returned.
Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify	Both parents argued DHS failed to provide adequate services (Matthew emphasized transportation)	State: DHS provided services (transportation via Boys Town, gas vouchers); parents chose to live in Omaha and delayed treatment	Affirmed. Court concluded DHS made reasonable efforts; transportation assistance did not render efforts unreasonable.
Whether termination was in children’s best interests (Iowa Code § 232.116(2))	Parents argued bonds with children and children’s age favor preserving parental rights; requested additional time (3–6 months)	State and guardian ad litem: children need permanency; grandparents provide stable, nurturing home; parental inconsistency harms children	Affirmed. Court held children need permanency; termination serves safety, stability, and emotional needs; extension denied.

In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 ("present time" means time of termination hearing)
In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (de novo review of termination decisions)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (reasonable-efforts framework for reunification)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (best-interest standard requires focus on safety and permanency)
Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864 (appellate review limited to issues raised by appellant)
In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85 (urgency where children have been out of home over twelve months)
State v. Louwrens, 792 N.W.2d 649 (conclusory appellate arguments preserve no issue)