reasonable efforts requirement in Iowa

2025See In re M.D., No. 19-1912, 2020 WL 567320 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020) (collecting cases that hold section 232.116(1)(b) does not have a reasonable- efforts requirement); cf. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (discussing the language of section 232.116(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), and (k) that “implicates the reasonable effort requirement”).

2025See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000) (“[T]he State must show reasonable efforts as a part of its ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent.”); In re C.G., No. 23-1234, 2024 WL 260926 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2024) (recognizing that “[a]t its core, a parent’s reasonable-efforts challenge functions as a challenge to a component of the statutory grounds”).

2024To preserve error on a reasonable-efforts challenge, the parent is required to alert the juvenile court to any claimed deficiency in services “at the removal, when the case permanency 6 plan is entered, or at later review hearings.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002).

2023However, we do not address either parent’s reasonable-efforts challenge because it appears neither raised a reasonable-efforts challenge prior to the termination hearing, In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002), and neither identifies services that should have been provided and would have led to reunification, In re C.E., No. 22-1179, 2022 WL 4362094 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2022). 5 (Iowa 2012).

2024See T.S., 868 N.W.2d at 442 (“[W]e will not review a reasonable efforts claim unless it is raised prior to the termination hearing.”).

2024See In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 442 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (“Complaints regarding services are properly raised ‘at removal, when the case permanency plan is entered, or at later review hearings.’ . . . [W]e will not review a reasonable efforts claim unless it is raised prior to the termination hearing.” (citations omitted)); In re G.C., No. 21-1781, 2022 WL 246270 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022) (“[T]he parent has a responsibility to object when appropriate changes can [still] be made.”).

2024During cross-examination by the guardian ad litem, the worker clarified that the ten times the mother has relapsed following treatment shows “she doesn’t have a very good history of being able to maintain her sobriety.” 5 Although the reasonable-efforts requirement continues until there is a final written termination order, the supreme court has clarified that the “obligation to provide reasonable efforts until a final written termination order does not necessarily require [the State] to provide reasonable efforts toward reunification.” In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 528 (Iowa 2019).

2024See Iowa Code § 232.116 (1)(f)(4) (allowing termination if there is “clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102”); In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 527 (Iowa 2019) (stating that the reasonable-efforts requirement impacts the State’s burden of proving the children cannot be safely returned home and is not a strict substantive requirement for termination).

2021See In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835 , 839–40 (Iowa 2017) (“[P]arents have a responsibility to object when they claim the nature or extent of services is inadequate.”); In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002) (“If, however, a parent is not satisfied with DHS’[s] response to a request for other services, the parent must come to the court and present this challenge.”); In re O.T., No. 18-0837, 2018 WL 3302167 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 5, 2018) (“The failure to request different or additional . . . services in the juvenile court precludes [the parent’s] challenge to the services on appeal.”); In

2020See In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (noting, while DHS “has an obligation to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, . . . a parent has an equal obligation to demand other, different, or additional services prior to a permanency or termination hearing”); see also In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002) (noting parent must inform the juvenile court of a reasonable-efforts challenge in order to preserve error); In re S.J., No. 14-0978, 2014 WL 4231161 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2014) (“A challenge to the sufficiency of the State’s efforts to reunite parents wi

2025See id. at 839–40; In re A.W., No. 23-1125, 2023 WL 6290680 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2023) (explaining a reasonable-efforts challenge and the process required to preserve such a challenge for appeal).

2023In what basically amounts to a reasonable-efforts claim, she specifically asserts the State failed to file a case permanency plan.2 See In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Iowa 2017) (“The State must show reasonable efforts 2 The Department’s social worker testified she prepared the plan, and the State’s attorney stated that he uploaded it.

2022See In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (stating that a party challenging reasonable efforts must do so prior to the termination hearing). 7 T.S., 868 N.W.2d at 442 (quoting In re M.Y.R., No. 11-1139, 2011 WL 5389436 , at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2011)).

2021She acknowledges that “typically a reasonable effort must be requested by a parent.” Indeed, to preserve error on a reasonable-efforts challenge, a parent must complain to the juvenile court about the adequacy of the services “at the removal, when the case permanency plan is entered, or at later review hearings.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002); In re S.J., No. 14- 8 0978, 2014 WL 4231161 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2014) (“A challenge to the sufficiency of the State’s efforts to reunite parents with their children should be raised when the services are offered.” (citing In re

2025See In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522 , 525 (Iowa 2000).

2023In any event, assuming the mother preserved a proper reasonable efforts challenge, the department only has to make efforts that are “reasonable under the circumstances.” In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).

2021Further, to preserve error on a reasonable-efforts claim, the parent must “demand other, different or additional services prior to the termination hearing.” In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).

2019See In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002) (noting parent must inform the juvenile court of a reasonable-efforts challenge in order to preserve error); In re S.J., No. 14-0978, 2014 WL 4231161 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2014) (“A challenge to the sufficiency of the State’s efforts to reunite parents with their children should be raised when the services are offered.”); see also In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).

2019“Visitation between a parent and child is an important ingredient to the goal of reunification,” In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996), and the reasonable-efforts requirement “includes visitation designed to facilitate reunification while providing 8 adequate protection for the child.” C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493 .

2018The reasonable-efforts standard requires the department to “facilitate reunification while protecting the child from the harm responsible for the removal.” In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).

2023However, we do not address the mother’s reasonable-efforts challenge because it appears she did not raise a reasonable-efforts challenge prior to the termination hearing, In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002), and she does not identify what services she believes should have been provided that would have led to reunification, In re C.E., No. 22-1179, 2022 WL 4362094 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2022). 3 court’s order on any ground we find supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012).

2023However, we do not address the mother’s reasonable-efforts challenge because it appears she did not raise a reasonable-efforts challenge prior to the termination hearing, In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002), and she does not identify what services she believes should have been provided that would have led to reunification, In re C.E., No. 22-1179, 2022 WL 4362094 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2022). 3 court’s order on any ground we find supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012).

2018Our court did determine the refusal to provide an American Sign Language interpreter for a deaf mother amounted to a violation of the reasonable-efforts requirement when the mother's advocate testified the communication assistance would have "made a significant difference in her ability to make progress." In re J.L. , 868 N.W.2d 462 , 467 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (outlining the DHS nondiscrimination policy).

2017See In re J.L., 868 N.W.2d 462 , 465–66 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015).

2024L.T., 924 6 N.W.2d at 527.

2023See id. (recognizing “the reasonable efforts requirement has undergone some transformation” because “the family preservation concept. . . was found to be detrimental to children in some cases”); In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 529 (Iowa 2019) (“[B]efore 1997, Iowa’s child welfare laws focused on reuniting the family unit.

2022See In re K.M., No. 17-0079, 2017 WL 1403647, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2017) (rejecting a mother’s reasonable efforts challenge because she failed to progress in therapy and was not implementing skills she had been learning).

2022See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). 3 Though the phrase is not mentioned in her appellate brief, the mother’s argument is really just a reasonable-efforts challenge.

2020See P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 40 ; In re D.R., No. 18-1116, 2018 WL 4361087 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2018); In re S.F., No. 15-0490, 2015 WL 3626439 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 10, 2015); In re D.H., No. 13-1693, 2014 WL 250256 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. Ap.

2018See In re R.P. , --- N.E.3d ----, ----, 2018 WL 798409 , at *11 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) ("Otherwise, there would always be an argument that one more additional service, no matter how remote, may have made reunification possible."); see also In re Savannah Y ., 158 A.3d 864 , 872 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017) ("[R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." (alteration in original)).

2016Indem., 489 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Iowa 1992) (explaining “a party need not, in fact cannot, appeal from a favorable ruling”). 3 In the juvenile court, the State joined the GAL in requesting waiver of the reasonable- efforts requirement.

2014See C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493 ; see also J.D.B., 584 N.W.2d at 581 ; 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1190, §§ 10-17.