In the Interest of Z.S., Minor Child, B.S., Father, K.B., Mother, 17-0929

Z.S., born ~2013, was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) after both parents tested positive for methamphetamine; mother Kelsey initially retained custody but child was removed in March 2016 and placed with maternal grandmother.
Kelsey has a history of severe amphetamine use disorder, entered inpatient treatment twice (House of Mercy), showed minimal progress, was unsuccessfully discharged, and had inconsistent outpatient engagement and relapse indicators during the case.
Father Brad had substance-use and mental-health issues, violated a no-contact order, was arrested in March 2016 while caring for Z.S., and remained incarcerated through the termination proceedings.
The State petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights; the juvenile court terminated Brad under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(e) and both parents under §232.116(1)(h). Both parents appealed.
The appellate court conducted de novo review, found the statutory grounds and best-interest findings supported by clear and convincing evidence, and affirmed termination for both parents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statutory ground under §232.116(1)(h) (age/removal/returnability)	Kelsey: child not within age window at order entry; child could be returned because she is employed, drug-free, and has family support	State: measure child’s age at termination hearing; Kelsey’s relapse history and inconsistent treatment prevent safe return	Affirmed: age measured at hearing; child could not be returned to Kelsey’s custody
Best interests of the child	Kelsey/Brad: parent–child bond and parental progress favor preserving rights	State: need for permanency, safety, and parents’ unresolved substance/mental-health issues	Affirmed: termination is in child’s best interests due to lack of parental stability and prolonged uncertainty
Reasonable efforts to reunify (Brad)	Brad: DHS failed to provide visitation while incarcerated, denying reunification services	State: claim not preserved because Brad never raised it below	Not reviewed: claim forfeited for failure to raise before the juvenile court
Relative placement exception §232.116(3)(a)	Parents: child placed with maternal grandmother — court should decline termination	State: grandmother lacks legal custody; permanency needs outweigh permissive factor	Affirmed: permissive consideration did not preclude termination; grandmother willing to adopt and delay would harm child

Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issues must be raised and decided below to preserve appellate review)
In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (severe, unresolved drug addiction can render a parent unfit)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (best-interest analysis prioritizes child safety and need for permanency)
In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (standard for de novo review in child-welfare proceedings)
In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (weight given to juvenile court findings on review)
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (definition of clear-and-convincing proof in termination cases)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (distinguishing relative placement from legal custody for §232.116(3)(a) analysis)
In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (limitations on one parent asserting another parent’s rights to gain a personal benefit)