In the Interest of T.S.L., Minor Children, D.L., Father
16-0526
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- Child T.S.L. (born 2007) removed from parental custody in Jan 2014 after abuse allegations involving mother; child and siblings placed in foster/adoptive home together by Dec 2014.
- Father was incarcerated 2013–2015 (federal convictions for drug distribution and firearm offense) and had a history of substance use and physical injury; released to home confinement June 2015 and to supervised release Nov 2015.
- Father initially visited consistently Sept–Nov 2015 while on home confinement but attendance became inconsistent after supervised release; tested positive for marijuana in Nov/Dec 2015 and again in early 2016.
- Father revoked DHS release authorization, declined recommended intensified treatment and mental-health counseling, provided inconsistent documentation of parenting-program attendance, and minimized child’s therapeutic/medication needs.
- Child showed behavioral improvement in foster/adoptive placement with siblings; DHS concluded permanency with foster family was needed and sought termination of father’s rights.
- Juvenile court terminated father’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f); father appealed seeking six more months and contesting grounds for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether element (f)(4) — child cannot be returned to parent — was proved | State: father’s dishonesty, ongoing substance use, failure to engage in services, missed visits show child cannot be returned | Father: not incarcerated now, denies current illegal substance use, no evidence mental condition prevents adequate care | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence that child could not be returned to father’s custody at hearing |
| Whether additional six-month reunification period was warranted | State: permanency required; father unlikely to remedy problems in six months | Father: sought extra time to rehabilitate and regain custody | Court: Denied — father unlikely to remedy removal reasons in six months; permanency favored |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were established | State: termination proper under §232.116(1)(d),(e),(f) | Father: challenged grounds, primarily (f)(4) | Court: Only one ground needed; (f) satisfied so termination upheld |
| Whether exceptions to termination (best interests/contemplated exceptions) applied | Father: urged leniency/extra time | State/DHS: child’s best interest is permanency in foster/adoptive home; exceptions in §232.116(3) do not apply | Court: Termination is in child’s best interests; exceptions do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review for termination appeals; de novo review)
- In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (only one statutory ground for termination need be affirmed)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (courts may not delay permanency indefinitely on hope a parent will later become able to provide a stable home)