# In the Interests of A.C.

> Supreme Court of Iowa · November 25, 1987 · 415 N.W.2d 609

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7876413

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Interests of A.C., A.C., S.C., S.C., and J.C., Minor Children, K.C., Natural Mother
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** November 25, 1987
- **Citations:** 415 N.W.2d 609; 1987 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1336
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Neuman
- **Judges:** Harris, Larson, Lavorato, Neuman, Schultz
- **Cited by:** 265 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7876413

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating “[i]t is unnecessary to take from the child’s future any more than is demanded by statute,” and noting that any plan to extend that period “should be viewed with a sense of urgency”
- noting that in considering whether to allow a parent additional time to remedy parenting deficiencies, the court should 12 “constantly bear in mind that, if the plan fails, all extended time must be subtracted from an already shortened life for the children in a better home”
- noting it is important to fix child custody quickly to avoid parentless limbo and holding that once the statutory time limits for termination have been met, it is unnecessary to take any more from the children’s future
- stating that insight into the future can be gained from evidence of a parent’s past performance
- noting that if the plan to reconcile parent and child fails, “all extended time must be subtracted from an already shortened life for the children in a better home”

## Opinion text

NEUMAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur in divisions II through V of the majority opinion, but I respectfully dissent from division I.
By characterizing the juvenile court’s action as no more than a protracted effort “to help the mother acquire parenting skills,” *617 the majority has, in my opinion, minimized the tragedy of this case. What the juvenile court in fact recognized — along with every other expert who testified — was the mother’s extraordinary effort to overcome a debilitating mental illness which virtually destroyed her ability to care for herself, let alone five children, until proper diagnosis made recovery a possibility.
Because this mother, through no fault of her own, has not progressed in her recovery at the speed the majority’s timetable would suggest, her parental rights are being irrevocably terminated. By choosing this extraordinary remedy, the majority has substituted its judgment for that of every expert called to testify, whether by the State or Jane Harlan. All pointed to reunification of the family as not only the most desirable goal, but one that was realistically attainable. All cited the tremendous strides KC has made in achieving that goal. Not one proposed termination of parental rights as being in the best interest of these children.
A year has now passed since this case was heard by the juvenile court. Intervening events may prove the majority’s prediction of the mother’s incapacities correct. But our task is to affirm or reverse the judgment of the juvenile court based on the evidence before it. Under this record, I would have affirmed the court’s dismissal of the termination petition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7876413. Public record. Not legal advice.