919 N.W.2d 768
Iowa Ct. App.2018Background
- Juvenile court terminated Vernon and Tanna’s parental rights to three children (born 2008, 2010, 2013) under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (i); parents appealed.
- IDHS had a ten-year history with the family, including 29 child-abuse investigations for drug use, domestic violence, physical and sexual abuse, homelessness, nomadicity, and mental-health concerns.
- Multiple founded reports involved physical abuse by the parents and by Tanna’s fiancé Jeremy, a registered sex offender.
- Over the years the family received extensive services (substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, domestic-violence counseling, parenting education, supervised visitation, etc.), but parents largely failed to engage or benefit.
- In the most recent removal, the children lived in filth, had access to prescription medication, and one child had access to a knife; Tanna chose to reside with two registered sex offenders.
- Both parents offered minimal argument on appeal; the court reviewed termination de novo and focused on § 232.116(1)(i) (risk of abuse/neglect and inability of services to correct conditions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed services would not correct conditions within a reasonable time under § 232.116(1)(i) | State: Services had been offered repeatedly and failed; parents unlikely to change given history. | Vernon/Tanna: Contended there was not clear and convincing evidence services would not correct conditions (bare assertion; no authority). | Court: Affirmed termination — parents waived robust challenge and, on merits, clear and convincing evidence supports § 232.116(1)(i). |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | State: Children’s safety and long-term nurturing require termination given parents’ history. | Tanna: Argued termination not in children’s best interest (assertion without developed argument). | Court: Termination is in children’s best interest due to ongoing risk, unsafe placements, and parents’ indifference/nonengagement. |
| Whether parents preserved appellate issues by argument and authority | State: N/A | Vernon/Tanna: Raised issues without developed argument or citations. | Court: Found challenges waived for lack of argument/authority but addressed merits given stakes to children. |
| Whether prior services and history support findings of incapacity to change | State: Long history of services and founded reports show incapacity/motivation problems. | Parents: Largely did not present contrary documented evidence; Vernon claimed evaluations but produced no records. | Court: History of failed services, mobility, noncooperation, and recent dangerous conditions establish serious concerns about capacity to change. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of appellate review in termination proceedings)
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (statutory framework for termination)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (affirmance may rest on any supported statutory ground)
- In re K.M., 653 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa 2002) (courts consider parents’ capacity and motivation to change)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (children cannot wait indefinitely for parental change; review parent’s past performance)
- State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 2005) (issues not argued on appeal are deemed waived)
- Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa 1996) (appellate consideration confined to issues raised)
- Richardson v. Neppl, 182 N.W.2d 384 (Iowa 1970) (unchallenged propositions need not be considered)