In Interest of K.F.
Iowa Supreme Court
437 N.W.2d 559 (1989)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Karen (defendant), the mother of nine-year-old Kristi, suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. As a result of Karen’s mental illness, she was involuntarily committed 11 times in four-and-a-half years, during which Kristi was placed in various foster homes. Following the latest involuntary commitment, Kristi was again judged a child in need of assistance (CINA) and placed in emergency foster care. Karen’s psychiatrist, Dr. Chang, reported that Karen’s delusions could not be entirely controlled by medication. Dr. Chang testified that Karen’s illness was characterized by cycles in which she would take her medication and function normally, followed by periods when she would stop taking her medication, lose touch with reality, and potentially become violent. Accordingly, Dr. Chang predicted that Karen would stop her medication and quickly become psychotic as soon as custody was restored and she was no longer subject to court oversight. The state (plaintiff) petitioned to terminate Karen’s parental rights, and the juvenile court granted the petition. Karen appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the juvenile court’s ruling, holding that Karen had made steady improvement, that reunification should be the goal, and that there was insufficient proof Karen would fail to properly care for Kristi going forward. The state appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Neuman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.