In the Interest of T.O., Minor Child, S.S., Father, 16-1963

T.O., born March 2015, tested positive at birth for marijuana and showed early medical concerns (muscle stiffness, possible seizures); placed with relatives/friends and received Early ACCESS services.
July 2015: T.O. adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) and remained out of parental custody throughout the case.
Steven (father) lived with T.O.'s mother at DHS involvement; paternity confirmed March 2, 2016 (99.9%).
Steven has a history of substance abuse and mental-health issues: positive drug test (marijuana and PCP), admitted methamphetamine and marijuana use, brief residential treatment (12 days) with counselor expressing guarded prognosis, and an arrest for public intoxication while the termination petition was pending.
The State petitioned to terminate parental rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h); at the September 2016 termination hearing the court found Steven had not remedied the issues leading to adjudication and that T.O. could not be returned to his custody “at the present time.”
Trial court also found termination was in T.O.’s best interests; this appeal challenges returnability and best-interests determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence showed T.O. could not be returned to the father’s custody at the time of the hearing under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h)	State: Steven hadn’t sufficiently addressed substance abuse and mental-health issues; child had been out of custody >6 months and risk of harm remained	Steven: He completed residential treatment, engaged in outpatient care, stabilized housing/employment, attended visits, and lacked reasonable time to establish himself because paternity testing was delayed	Held: Affirmed. Court found Steven’s progress was hurried/superficial, risk of harm remained, and he had had ample services (including time before paternity confirmation); return not appropriate “at the present time.”
Whether termination was in the child’s best interests under Iowa Code §232.116(2)	State: Child’s safety, long-term nurturing, and developmental needs favored termination and permanency via adoption	Steven: Continued visitation and engagement in services show reunification would be in child’s interests	Held: Affirmed. Court applied statutory best-interests factors (safety, placement for nurturing/growth, physical/mental/emotional needs) and found termination best served T.O.’s needs and path to permanency.

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review and requirement for clear-and-convincing proof in termination cases)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) ("at the present time" timing for returnability under §232.116(1)(h))
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (statutory framework for best-interests analysis under §232.116(2))