In the Interest of T.S. and K.G., Minor Children, L.G., Mother, K.G., Father of K.G., 868 N.W.2d 425

Background

Two children, K.G. (born 2000) and T.S. (born 2012), were removed after findings of parental methamphetamine use and domestic violence; DHS placed both with T.S.’s paternal grandparents and adjudicated them CINA.
Mother (Leanne) stipulated to CINA and was ordered into substance‑abuse, mental‑health, parenting, and domestic‑violence services; she relapsed (positive tests) and gave inconsistent histories about use.
Father of K.G. (Kirk) lived in Colorado, paid child support, had intermittent phone/text contact and summer visitation, but had minimal participation in the Iowa CINA/termination proceedings and did not complete a social‑history questionnaire or engage with services.
DHS filed termination petitions (May 2014). Juvenile court terminated Leanne’s rights to T.S. under §232.116(1)(d),(e),(h) and to K.G. under (d),(e); it terminated Kirk’s rights to K.G. under (b),(e).
On appeal the court (majority) affirmed termination of Leanne’s rights to T.S. under (h) and to K.G. under (e), and affirmed termination of Kirk’s rights to K.G. under (e); it reversed termination of Leanne to K.G. under (d).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Ineffective assistance of CINA counsel (Leanne)	Counsel should have appealed adjudication under §232.2(6)(b) and disposition refusing return	Counsel’s failure to appeal was reasonable because adjudication under (6)(b) was supported and appeals would be meritless	Denied: counsel not ineffective; appeals would have been meritless
2) Expedited termination appeals due‑process / appellate counsel effectiveness (Leanne)	Speeded deadlines + lack of transcript make effective appellate advocacy impossible when trial counsel withdraws	Iowa’s expedited scheme and de novo appellate review with full record available protect due process; new counsel can consult trial counsel/client	Denied: no per se due process violation; appellate counsel not ineffective per se
3) Sufficiency to terminate Leanne as to T.S. under §232.116(1)(h)	Leanne argues insufficiency/overreliance on mental‑health references	Child <3, removed >6 months, no trial home, mother unresolved substance abuse/domestic violence — return would be contrary to welfare	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination under (h)
4) Sufficiency to terminate Leanne as to K.G. under §232.116(1)(d) and (e)	(d): mother argues no prior physical injury so (d) not met; (e): mother argues she maintained contact and tried to comply	(d): (6)(b) CINA adjudication based on imminent likelihood of neglect not equivalent to proof of physical injury needed for (d); (e): mother missed services, relapsed, concealed contacts, violated orders — failed to make genuine efforts	(d) Reversed: no evidence of prior physical injury required for (d). (e) Affirmed: mother failed to make genuine effort and made no reasonable efforts to resume care
5) Sufficiency to terminate Kirk’s rights to K.G. under §232.116(1)(b) and (e)	Kirk: maintained noncustodial contact (support, calls, summer visit), DHS focused on mother, DHS did not provide services — termination improper	State: Kirk failed to complete permanency requirements (didn’t complete social history, didn’t make intentions known timely, minimal participation), and made no reasonable efforts to resume care	(b) Reversed: no abandonment/desertion proved. (e) Affirmed by majority: clear and convincing evidence Kirk failed to assume parental duties or make reasonable efforts; dissent would reverse

Key Cases Cited

In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of de novo review for termination appeals)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (clear and convincing evidence standard for termination)
In re C.M., 652 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 2002) (due process and appellate‑procedure balancing in termination appeals)
In re A.R.S., 480 N.W.2d 888 (Iowa 1992) (ineffective‑assistance test applied in juvenile/termination context)
In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (distinguishing CINA adjudication under §232.2(6)(b) from the physical‑injury requirement for §232.116(1)(d))
In re L.M., 654 N.W.2d 502 (Iowa 2002) (expedited petition form and role of trial counsel in preparing appellate petition)
In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014) (only one statutory ground needed to affirm termination)