In the Interest of A.T., Minor Child, T.L., Father
16-1640
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- Child A.T., born 2014, was adjudicated CINA and removed in October 2015; placed with maternal grandparents who are willing to adopt.
- Father (appellant) had not seen the child since removal and remained largely nonparticipatory in services; he was on probation and incarcerated for much of the case.
- Juvenile court terminated father’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h); mother consented to termination and did not appeal.
- At the termination hearing father argued: (1) he was denied appointed counsel during the earlier CINA proceedings (due process claim); (2) the State failed to make reasonable reunification efforts; (3) termination should not apply because the child is placed with a relative; and (4) he should get an additional six months to attempt reunification.
- The juvenile court terminated rights; father appealed. The appellate court reviews termination de novo, giving weight to trial credibility findings and focusing on the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s due process right to appointed counsel during CINA was violated | Father: He lacked court‑appointed counsel while incarcerated in the CINA proceedings. | State: Issue not preserved for appeal because father didn’t request a ruling below. | Not preserved; appellate review refused for lack of preservation. |
| Whether State failed to make reasonable reunification efforts | Father: State did not provide/offer adequate reunification services. | State: Issue was not raised timely in lower court; no ruling requested. | Not preserved; appellate review refused for lack of preservation. |
| Whether termination should be avoided because child is placed with a relative (Iowa Code §232.116(3)(a)) | Father: Relative placement means court need not terminate. | State: Application of the exception is discretionary and not mandated. | Court applied exception permissively and declined to apply it; termination affirmed. |
| Whether father should have been granted six‑month extension for reunification | Father: Needs more time to complete substance‑abuse and mental‑health treatment and services. | State: Father’s incarceration, lack of participation, and history show reunification unlikely within six months. | Denied: record did not show removal needs would be resolved in six months; termination affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of de novo review in termination appeals)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (weight given to juvenile court credibility findings)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (reasonable efforts requirement in termination proofs)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (error preservation requires issues be raised and ruled on below)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (parental rights may be terminated when return is not possible due to parental incarceration)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (child’s need for permanency outweighs hope parent will improve)
- In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170 (Iowa 1997) (relative placement does not automatically bar termination)