967 N.W.2d 198
Iowa Ct. App.2021Background
- Fred (father) and Jennifer (mother) married; two daughters: R.A. (born 2002) and S.O. (born 2008). R.A. disclosed years of sexual abuse by Fred beginning in middle school; DHS substantiated lascivious-acts finding and criminal charges were filed and pending. Parents deny allegations.
- DHS removed the children in late 2018/early 2019; S.O. adjudicated CINA in March 2019 and experienced multiple placements and behavioral/mental-health crises; by the termination hearing she awaited placement in a PMIC.
- Parents had prior domestic-violence history and prior DHS involvement (including a 2015 founded abuse report). The juvenile court found parental boundary problems and manipulation of S.O.
- DHS offered services and a list of providers; parents sought VA counseling but did not obtain the specific therapy DHS required and largely refused to acknowledge the abuse allegations or take accountability.
- The State petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f). The juvenile court found R.A. credible, concluded S.O. could not be safely returned, found reasonable efforts by DHS, and terminated parental rights. All three (child and both parents) appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child’s standing to appeal termination grounds | S.O.: child has personal, emotional, and legal stake and may be injuriously affected; counsel may appeal for child. | State: statutory petitioners list does not include child’s attorney; prior unpublished cases held children lack standing to contest grounds. | Court held child has standing to challenge statutory grounds and related issues through counsel. |
| Sufficiency of §232.116(1)(f) ground (child cannot be returned) | S.O.: State failed to show S.O. was at risk; expert said Fred unlikely to abuse his biological child; S.O. feels safe going home. | State: R.A.’s credible allegations, parents’ denial and lack of treatment, and Jennifer’s inability/unwillingness to protect make return unsafe. | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports that S.O. could not be returned due to parents’ denial and lack of meaningful therapy. |
| Reasonable efforts by DHS | Parents and child: DHS should have provided more targeted/appropriate sexual-abuse counseling and expanded visitation. | State: DHS offered services, lists of providers, and coordinated with VA; parents refused recommended therapy and were noncompliant. | Court held DHS met reasonable-efforts requirement given parents’ refusal to engage. |
| Permissive factors (§232.116(3)) and extension request (six months) | S.O./parents: child objects to termination; S.O. approved for PMIC placement; request for six‑month reunification extension. | State: child’s wishes influenced by parents and missing pets; PMIC placement does not establish safe return; parents unlikely to change. | Court rejected permissive factors and denied extension—child’s wish outweighed by best interests and no evidence parents could reunify within six months. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305 (Iowa 2021) (standard of review and burden for termination appeals)
- Alons v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 698 N.W.2d 858 (Iowa 2005) (standing focuses on the party’s personal/legal interest)
- Godfrey v. State, 752 N.W.2d 413 (Iowa 2008) (standing requires specific personal or legal interest and injury)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (§232.116(1)(f) requires present inability to return the child under §232.102)
- In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 2014) (statutory roles of guardian ad litem and child’s attorney and their standing)
- In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (limitations on one parent asserting arguments for the other parent)
- In re D.G., 704 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (separate adjudications for each parent; limits on standing when arguing for another parent)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process requires clear-and-convincing proof before terminating parental rights)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1978) (parental and child interests in family integrity and due process)