In the Interest of X.M., Minor Child, D.M., Mother, 17-0194

X.M. was relinquished as a Safe Haven baby at birth (Sept. 2015); DHS initiated a CINA proceeding and placed him with maternal grandparents in Dec. 2015, where he remained throughout the case.
Destiny (mother) initially expressed intent to relinquish custody, later intermittently engaged in visits beginning April 2016, but stopped services and visits after moving to Des Moines in summer 2016.
The State filed to terminate parental rights in Nov. 2016; Destiny did not appear at the December 2016 termination hearing and could not be reached by counsel.
The juvenile court terminated Destiny’s rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h); appeal challenged sufficiency of evidence for statutory grounds and failure to consider guardianship under § 232.104.
The court and this panel focused on § 232.116(1)(e): child adjudicated CINA, removed for >6 months, and mother failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact or make reasonable efforts to resume care in the prior six months.
Court concluded Destiny had not performed parental duties (no financial support, inconsistent visits, no plan compliance, no intent to resume custody); termination affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §232.116(1)(e)	State: child CINA, removed >6 months, mother lacked significant/meaningful contact and made no reasonable efforts to resume care	Destiny: maintained place of importance and meaningful contact with X.M.	Affirmed: evidence supports termination under (1)(e)
Whether court should have explored guardianship by grandparents before terminating	State: termination appropriate despite relative custody given mother’s indifference	Destiny: wanted guardianship for grandparents and court failed to explore this option	Not preserved on appeal (mother did not attend hearing or inform counsel); court did not address on merits
Whether permissive factor §232.116(3)(a) (child in custody of relative) should prevent termination	Mother: argued custody with relatives is reason to forgo termination	State: maternal indifference made the factor inapplicable	Court declined to apply §232.116(3)(a); affirmed
Whether procedural error or insufficiency of process at hearing invalidated termination	Mother: contended lack of exploration of alternatives and insufficient evidence	State: record and admitted exhibits supported findings; mother absent/unavailable	No reversible error; termination upheld

In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (standard for clear and convincing proof in TPR cases)
In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (analysis of significant and meaningful contact under §232.116(1)(e))
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (error-preservation rules apply in termination proceedings)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (permissive application of §232.116(3)(a) when child is placed with relative)
In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (de novo review standard for termination proceedings)