permanency hearing in Iowa

2026Finally, we are unpersuaded by the mother’s argument that she should have been given “additional time to achieve reunification.” To continue placement for an additional six months after a permanency hearing, the juvenile court must “make a determination the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of the extension.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005); see Iowa Code § 232.104 (2)(b).

2025See In re S.O., 967 N.W.2d 198 , 209 (Iowa Ct. App. 2021) (“[The department] must make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as possible consistent with the best interests of the child.” (cleaned up)); In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (noting the parent has an obligation, equal to 5 the department’s, to request reasonable services before the permanency hearing).

2023Because the mother was unable to resolve those issues, termination petitions were filed for the older children, and the child in this appeal was removed from the mother’s 1 The child’s father was granted additional time to work toward reunification because he was identified through paternity testing just before the permanency hearing. 2 The mother’s petition contains one issue heading: “The Court erred in finding that the Mother’s rights should be terminated pursuant to Iowa Code Section 232.116(2).” But in the body of her argument, in addition to the more fully developed claims identified abo

2022During 3 Id. 4 In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010) (quoting In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000)). 5 In re H.V., No. 15-1481, 2015 WL 6507559 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2015); accord Iowa R.

2023See In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002) (noting complaints must be voiced to the court); In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (stating the parent’s obligation to request specific services must precede the permanency hearing to preserve error for appellate review).

2023See In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002) (noting complaints must be made to the juvenile court); In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85 , 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (noting parent’s obligation to request specific services must precede the permanency hearing to preserve error for appellate review). 3.

2021See In re M.D., 921 N.W.2d 229, 238 (Iowa 2018) (Christensen, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003) (“The parents also argue they were denied due process when the juvenile court concluded the permanency hearing without allowing them to present more evidence and to testify. . . .

2016See In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003) (holding the parents’ due process challenge was not preserved for review because they did not object at the permanency hearing and “[e]ven issues implicating constitutional rights must be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal”).

2024See Iowa Code § 232.104 (4) (2024); In re A.D., 489 N.W.2d 50, 52 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (“The State on a permanency hearing 1 Later, another sibling also accused the father of sexually abusing her.The father was eventually charged with eight counts of sexual abuse—four counts for each of the siblings accusing him—and was awaiting trial at the time of the permanency hearing. 2 With respect to one child, the permanency order established a guardianship with the child’s foster parents.

2024See Iowa Code § 232.104 (4) (2024); In re A.D., 489 N.W.2d 50, 52 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (“The State on a permanency hearing 1 Later, another sibling also accused the father of sexually abusing her.The father was eventually charged with eight counts of sexual abuse—four counts for each of the siblings accusing him—and was awaiting trial at the time of the permanency hearing. 2 With respect to one child, the permanency order established a guardianship with the child’s foster parents.

2022During 3 Id. 4 In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010) (quoting In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000)). 5 In re H.V., No. 15-1481, 2015 WL 6507559 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2015); accord Iowa R.

2022In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). 2 The mother also has a teenage child who has been living with maternal grandmother for several years under an informal arrangement—“until [the mother] got [her] stuff together.” 4 asked for additional time to achieve sobriety at the time of the permanency hearing in May 2021.

2022However, “a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477 (quoting In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017)).

2018See Iowa Code § 232.104 (2)(d)(1) (allowing the court, after a permanency hearing, to transfer guardianship and custody of the child to a suitable person rather than terminate a parental relationship when termination is not in the best interests of the child). "[P]ermanency orders are not preferred over the termination of parental rights." In re B.T. , 894 N.W.2d 29 , 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). "[T]he legislature ... has made a categorical determination that the needs of a child are promoted by termination of parental rights." In re M.W. , 458 N.W.2d 847 , 850 (Iowa 1990).

2024“Therefore, the principles of res judicata bar [her] claim.” In re D.S., 563 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (recognizing the principles of res judicata bar a parent’s claim when the claim arises from a different order than the one the parent appealed); In re Marriage of Guyer, 522 N.W.2d 818, 821 (Iowa 1994) (“Principles of res judicata preclude a court from relitigating an issue or claim that has been previously decided.”); In re A.A., No. 10-1102, 2010 WL 3503981 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2010) (“[A]ny error claimed to have been made at the permanency hearing or within the ruling p

2024“Therefore, the principles of res judicata bar [her] claim.” In re D.S., 563 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (recognizing the principles of res judicata bar a parent’s claim when the claim arises from a different order than the one the parent appealed); In re Marriage of Guyer, 522 N.W.2d 818, 821 (Iowa 1994) (“Principles of res judicata preclude a court from relitigating an issue or claim that has been previously decided.”); In re A.A., No. 10-1102, 2010 WL 3503981 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2010) (“[A]ny error claimed to have been made at the permanency hearing or within the ruling p

2023In any event, we conclude the department’s efforts were “reasonable under the circumstances,” see In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000), given the services provided and the mother’s response to them.

2022See id. at 776 (“We have long recognized that an unresolved, severe, and chronic drug addiction can render a parent unfit to raise children.”); In re J.B., No. 18-0696, 2018 WL 4361058 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2018) (“[The mother] had been participating in treatment for two months and still lived in an inpatient treatment facility at the time of the permanency hearing. . . . [H]er last-minute efforts are insufficient.”); In re Z.R., No. 17-1004, 2017 WL 4050989 , at * 4 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2017) (“Where, as here, ‘the parent has been unable to rise above the addiction and experien

2022Co., 467 N.W.2d 247, 249 (Iowa 1991) (reviewing a ruling on a motion to sever for abuse of discretion). 5 the hearing, all parties—including the father—agreed to continue the permanency hearing and hold a concurrent hearing in October.

2022Rather than a free-standing result, the court’s denial of the motion to continue the permanency hearing “is subsumed in the final termination order.” See In re T.R., 705 N.W.2d 6, 11 (Iowa 2005).

2022Rather than a free-standing result, the court’s denial of the motion to continue the permanency hearing “is subsumed in the final termination order.” See In re T.R., 705 N.W.2d 6, 11 (Iowa 2005).

2021Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974) (“To reach the merits 1He cites no case law and only two nominal statutes that reference what the court shall do after a permanency hearing. 3 of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy.

2021See In re M.D., 921 N.W.2d 229, 238 (Iowa 2018) (Christensen, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003) (“The parents also argue they were denied due process when the juvenile court concluded the permanency hearing without allowing them to present more evidence and to testify. . . .

2021See In re Blackledge, 304 N.W.2d at 214 (“When a child is removed from the home, services are provided to the parent to facilitate the child’s return.

2020“In addition, section 232.104(2) gives the court several options after a permanency hearing, including ordering a termination petition, but does not require a permanency hearing before a termination petition may be filed.” Id. (citing In re R.C., 523 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994)).

2019The placement shall be terminated and the child returned to the child’s home if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child will not suffer harm in the manner specified in section 232.2, subsection 6. 10 This part of section 232.102 has been referenced in relation to section 232.116(1)’s use of the phrase “as provided in section 232.102.” See In re A.M.S., 419 N.W.2d 723, 725 (Iowa 1988) (“The proof must only show that any of the alleged definitional grounds of a child in need of assistance in section 232.2(6) exist at the time of the termination hearing.”); In re M.M., 4

2019See id.; see also In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 840 (Iowa 2017) (concluding, where visitation was placed within discretion of DHS and the GAL, failure to voice objections at subsequent hearings concerning the adequacy of visitation “waives the issue”); In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002) (noting complaints must be voiced to the juvenile court).

2019The placement shall be terminated and the child returned to the child’s home if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child will not suffer harm in the manner specified in section 232.2, subsection 6. 10 This part of section 232.102 has been referenced in relation to section 232.116(1)’s use of the phrase “as provided in section 232.102.” See In re A.M.S., 419 N.W.2d 723, 725 (Iowa 1988) (“The proof must only show that any of the alleged definitional grounds of a child in need of assistance in section 232.2(6) exist at the time of the termination hearing.”); In re M.M., 4

2018Randall concedes he is unable to prove this change in circumstances is permanent because of crop 5 price fluctuations, so to meet his burden the change must be continuous rather than temporary.1 See Walters, 575 N.W.2d at 741 (“[T]he change in circumstances must be permanent or continuous rather than temporary.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).

2018See Iowa Code § 232.104 (2)(d)(1) (allowing the court, after a permanency hearing, to transfer guardianship and custody of the child to a suitable person rather than terminate a parental relationship when termination is not in the best interests of the child). "[P]ermanency orders are not preferred over the termination of parental rights." In re B.T. , 894 N.W.2d 29 , 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). "[T]he legislature ... has made a categorical determination that the needs of a child are promoted by termination of parental rights." In re M.W. , 458 N.W.2d 847 , 850 (Iowa 1990).

2017See Hays v. Hays, 612 N.W.2d 817, 819 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (“We do not have jurisdiction to consider untimely appeals.”).

2017In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). 6 The mother may have met with the therapist one time after the permanency hearing; the record is not clear. 10 III.

2016See In re J.S., 470 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (holding the presentation of testimony by deposition is sufficient to meet due process requirements).

2015In In re J.C., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2014 WL 7338505, at *5-6 (Iowa Dec. 26, 2014), our supreme court recently emphasized the need for prompt resolution of juvenile proceedings: A permanency hearing “for a child subject to out-of-home placement” must “be held within twelve months of the date the child was removed from the home.” Iowa Code § 232.104 (1)(a)(1); see also id. § 232.104(1)(a)(2) (requiring a permanency hearing within thirty days if “the court has waived reasonable efforts requirements under section 232.102”).