In the Interest of Z.C. and B.C., Minor Children, J.C., Mother, 17-0066

Background

Mother appealed termination of her parental rights to Z.C. (b. 2005) and B.C. (b. 2012) after juvenile court removed the children in August 2015 due to domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and the father disabling the mother’s car.
At removal, B.C. was behind on vaccinations and had severe dental problems; children were adjudicated CINA in August 2015 and placed with paternal aunt and uncle.
The State filed a termination petition listing multiple statutory grounds; at hearing both children were age four or older and had been out of mother’s custody for at least twelve months.
Mother asserted improved stability shortly before the hearing (housing, employment, counseling, no current relationship), denied recent drug use, and had resumed visitations in the weeks before the hearing.
Record showed longstanding domestic-violence history with repeated no-contact order violations, a history of substance abuse with recent positive methamphetamine test and missed screens, late engagement in mental-health treatment, inconsistent visitation, and eleventh-hour attempts to remedy issues.
Juvenile court terminated parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (although it mistakenly cited (h) for B.C.); appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State proved statutory grounds for termination (applicability of §232.116(1)(f) vs (h))	Mother argued trial court applied wrong paragraph to B.C. (used (h) for child under 3 when child had turned 4 before hearing).	State noted petition alleged alternative grounds and court found child was 4; typographical error harmless.	Court held statutory age is determined as of last day of hearing; (h) citation was clerical error and §232.116(1)(f) applies.
Whether statutory elements of §232.116(1)(f) were satisfied	Mother argued she had stabilized (housing, employment, counseling), sober, consistent visitation — children could be returned.	State argued children had been removed >12 months, mother’s substance abuse, unresolved domestic violence, inconsistent compliance and late remedial efforts prevented return.	Court held elements satisfied: children were ≥4, adjudicated CINA, removed ≥12 months, and could not be returned to mother at hearing.
Whether mother’s recent progress overcame prior history/time for reunification	Mother contended recent improvements showed fitness to parent.	State emphasized timeliness: improvements were eleventh-hour, insufficient given prolonged problems and children’s need for permanency.	Court held last-minute progress insufficient; parent cannot wait until eve of termination to begin reunification.
Best interests and adoptability/permanency	Mother argued loss of parental rights would be harsh given her recent stability.	State reported children thriving with paternal relatives and several relatives willing to adopt; permanency favored termination.	Court held termination was in children’s best interests; children adoptable and doing well in relatives’ home.

Key Cases Cited

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review and alternative grounds on appeal)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (affirmance may rest on any proven statutory ground)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (weight given to juvenile court credibility findings)
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (primary consideration is child’s best interests)
State v. Hess, 533 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1995) (distinguishing clerical errors from judicial determinations)
State v. Pearson, 876 N.W.2d 200 (Iowa 2016) (discussion of nunc pro tunc/clerical error remediation)
In re D.L.C., 464 N.W.2d 881 (Iowa 1991) (harmlessness of juvenile court errors in light of de novo appellate review)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (timeliness of reunification efforts; cannot wait until eve of termination)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (permanency interest and inability to delay termination waiting for parental improvement)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (same: courts should not deprive child of permanency in hope parent will improve)