Background
A.B., born in 2024, was removed after the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services learned that both parents and another family caregiver used methamphetamine and knew of each other’s drug use while caring for the infant. The mother was also arrested for domestic violence against the father in the child’s presence and was on probation for a separate drug offense. The child was placed with a maternal aunt and later adjudicated in need of assistance.
HHS worked with the father’s and child’s tribe and obtained affidavits from tribal qualified expert witnesses supporting continued removal and the aunt’s placement. The mother completed inpatient treatment in early 2025 but relapsed later that year, resulting in revocation of her probation and a prison sentence. At the termination hearing, she remained incarcerated and was awaiting placement in a residential correctional facility. The juvenile court terminated her rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h).
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that termination was supported by section 232.116(1)(h). The first three elements—A.B.’s age, child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication, and required period of removal—were undisputed.
The State proved the disputed final element because the mother could not safely resume custody at the time of the termination hearing. She was incarcerated, where the child could not reside with her, and was waiting for an opening at a residential correctional facility, where the child likewise could not stay. The court also declined to consider events after the termination hearing and stated that the mother’s recent progress would not change the result because she was still far from providing a safe, sober home after nearly two years of removal.
Key Takeaways
- A parent must be able to safely resume custody at the time of the termination trial to defeat termination under section 232.116(1)(h).
- Incarceration and anticipated placement in a residential correctional facility supported the finding that the child could not then be returned safely.
- An appellate court ordinarily will not consider developments outside the record that occurred after the termination hearing or order.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that recent rehabilitative progress does not displace a young child’s need for permanency when the parent remains unable to provide immediate, safe custody. The court may affirm on one supported statutory ground when the juvenile court relied on multiple grounds.