In the Interest of S.P., Minor Child
21-0928
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- Child S.P., born late 2018, has significant medical needs including a feeding tube and frequent specialty medical/therapy appointments requiring careful, attentive care and stable routines.
- DHS had prior involvement with the family; S.P. was voluntarily placed and adjudicated a child in need of assistance in Feb. 2019 and remained in family foster care for over two years.
- Mother (J.M.) lacked stable housing, reliable transportation, and demonstrated inconsistent attendance at training and visits; she lived with a boyfriend with a history of domestic abuse and substance issues who was not approved for visits.
- Father (M.P.) was initially inconsistent with visitation but later attended regular supervised visits; he underwent a psychosexual evaluation recommending supervised visits and therapy, has refused sex-offender counseling, and sometimes fell asleep at appointments and failed to recognize feeding problems.
- Foster family provided additional feeding-tube training to the mother; neither parent consistently demonstrated the ability to manage S.P.’s complex medical needs.
- Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h); parents appealed and the court affirmed termination, finding grounds established, reasonable efforts made, termination in child’s best interests, and no further extension warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved under §232.116(1)(h) that S.P. could not be returned to a parent’s care | Mother/Father: child could be returned; parents challenged element (4) | State: clear and convincing evidence parents lacked stable housing, transport, skills, and father had psychosexual concerns | Court: Ground proved — child could not safely be returned to either parent |
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification | Parents: DHS failed to provide adequate services/visits | State: DHS provided reasonable efforts; parents did not timely pursue motions or comply (mother didn’t file motions; father missed hearing) | Court: DHS made reasonable efforts |
| Whether termination is contrary to child’s best interests because of parent–child bond | Parents: closeness of bond counsels against termination | State: child’s long-term medical needs and need for stability outweigh bond | Court: Bond insufficient to defeat termination; termination is in child’s best interests |
| Whether additional time or guardianship was appropriate instead of termination | Parents: requested more time/guardianship (mother suggested guardianship) | State: child had been out of home nearly entire life; permanency needed; foster parents not shown willing to be guardians | Court: No further extension; guardianship not appropriate; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.D., 921 N.W.2d 229 (Iowa 2018) (standard of review and best-interests focus in termination appeals)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (requirement of clear and convincing evidence for termination grounds)
- In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835 (Iowa 2017) (parent responsibility to object when services are inadequate)
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (burden on parent to prove closeness-of-bond exception to termination)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (courts should not make a child wait indefinitely for parental stability)