In the Interest of A.F., Minor Child, D.F., Father
16-2098
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Child born in 2014 to D.F. (father) and N.R. (mother); child removed from parents' care on Sept. 14, 2015 after mother tested positive for methamphetamine; child placed with maternal grandmother.
- Father had cared for the child for about the first year, but was incarcerated when child was removed; father had a long history of substance abuse and criminal convictions.
- Father was later in a halfway house (Apr–Sept 2016), obtained employment, completed outpatient substance-abuse treatment, and had limited contact: two authorized visits and one unauthorized interaction after release.
- State filed to terminate parental rights on Sept. 8, 2016; juvenile court terminated father’s rights on Dec. 2, 2016 under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d) and (h).
- Juvenile court found services were offered, father failed to meaningfully participate, child could not be safely returned to father, and termination was in child’s best interests. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (D.F.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 232.116(1)(d) supports termination | CINA adjudication and offered services justify termination | Father argued CINA adjudication under § 232.2(6)(c)(2) does not show physical abuse/neglect required for (d) | Court: (d) not satisfied — no evidence of nonaccidental physical injury; termination cannot rest on (d) |
| Whether § 232.116(1)(h) supports termination | Child <3, CINA adjudicated, removed from parents for ≥6 months, cannot be returned now | Father argued child was never removed from his custody and thus (h)(3) not met | Court: (h) satisfied — father had prior physical custody and child was removed from parents; clear and convincing evidence child could not be returned |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests | Safety, stability, and father’s ongoing substance/criminal history weigh for termination | Father argued closeness of relationship and improvements justify preserving rights | Court: Termination is in child’s best interests; parent-child bond not strong enough to invoke § 232.116(3)(c) exception |
| Whether closeness-of-relationship exception (§ 232.116(3)(c)) applies | State: exception not applicable given limited visits and father’s history | Father: relationship closeness should preclude termination | Court: Exception not applied — visits limited and bond not sufficiently strong to outweigh other factors |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing evidence in termination appeals)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (clear-and-convincing standard explained)
- In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359 (Iowa 2002) (definition of serious or substantial doubt standard)
- In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (child’s best interests as paramount concern)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (grounds for CINA adjudication affect available termination grounds)
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (termination under § 232.116(1)(d) requires nonaccidental physical injury finding)
- In re C.F.-H., 889 N.W.2d 201 (Iowa 2016) (statutory requirement that child be "removed from physical custody" means there must have been a change from physical custody to lack of custody)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (factors for child’s best interests in termination context)
- In re Marriage of N.M., 491 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 1992) (construction of "parents" to include singular and plural)