In the Interest of T.R., C.R., and K.R., Minor Children, J.R., Father, S.H., Mother
17-1042
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- Three children (born 2005, 2008, 2010) were removed from their parents’ custody on December 22, 2015, adjudicated CINA February 1, 2016, and remained out of the parents’ custody for well over 12 consecutive months.
- The family had a long history with DHS and juvenile court, prior CINA in 2011, founded abuse assessments, parental substance abuse (parents tested positive for methamphetamine), and failure to meet children's medical needs (one child was morbidly obese and had multiple medical conditions).
- Allegations of physical and sexual abuse by the father later arose, visitation was limited to therapeutic visits, and the father ceased participating in services.
- The juvenile court in December 2016 changed permanency goal to reunification with the mother only, ordered continued therapy and substance-abuse recovery efforts; mother later tested positive for methamphetamine in May 2017.
- At the June 5, 2017 termination/permanency hearing both parents declined to present evidence (father conceded children could not be returned now); guardian ad litem recommended termination; the court denied parents’ motions to reopen the record and terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f).
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | State/Respondent's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f) (child ≥4; out of custody ≥12 months; cannot be returned now) | Parents argued children could be returned or mother asked for more time to transition children back | Evidence showed children out of home >12 months, unresolved safety/substance issues, and parents unable to provide safe care | Court affirmed termination under § 232.116(1)(f) — clear and convincing evidence supported termination |
| Whether termination could alternatively be challenged under § 232.116(1)(d) (services offered but circumstance persists) | Mother contended evidence insufficient for (1)(d) | State relied on (1)(f) ground already proven | Court declined to reach (1)(d) because (1)(f) independently supports termination |
| Whether closeness of parent-child bond should prevent termination under § 232.116(3)(c) | Father argued close bond and maternal family ties made termination detrimental to children | State argued no permissive factor outweighed children’s need for permanence and safety | Court found no § 232.116(3) factor precluded termination; termination in children’s best interests |
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion by denying motions to reopen record or by accepting parents’ waiver of presenting evidence | Parents claimed waiver/coercion and sought reopening | Court noted broad discretion to reopen; record showed voluntary decisions and no coercion | Court found no abuse of discretion and denied reopening; upheld proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard for de novo appellate review in CINA/TPR appeals)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (appellate courts may affirm on any statutory ground supported by record)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (state need not defer permanency in hope parent will someday be able to parent)
- In re J.R.H., 358 N.W.2d 311 (Iowa 1984) (trial court has broad discretion to reopen evidence)