In the Interest of C.J.P., Minor Child, D.P., Mother, J.E., Father
15-1814
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Father (Jerry) imprisoned when daughter C.J.P. was three months old; serving a 30-year sentence with a 7-year mandatory minimum, eligible for parole in 2018.
- Father never lived with the child, earned modest prison wages but made no financial contributions to the child’s support.
- Father’s contact was limited to a few letters per year; he did not pursue visits, phone calls, or other means available in prison to build a relationship.
- Child has been raised by mother (Danielle) and maternal grandparents since infancy; grandparents have primary caretaking role and the child refers to grandfather as “daddy.”
- Mother filed to terminate father’s parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A (abandonment ground and an imprisonment ground); the district court granted termination and found abandonment proven but not the five‑year imprisonment ground.
- Father appealed; although his notice of appeal was filed late under the court’s EDMS filing rule, the appellate court allowed a delayed appeal in the interests of justice and reviewed the termination de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jerry abandoned C.J.P. under Iowa Code §600A.8(3)(b) | Danielle: Jerry made only marginal efforts—no financial support and minimal communication—thus abandoned the child. | Jerry: Incarceration limits his ability to contact and support; he did not intend to abandon the child. | Held: Abandonment proven by clear and convincing evidence; absence of financial contributions and lack of regular contact satisfied statutory predicates. |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | Danielle: Child is thriving with mother and grandparents; termination promotes stability and safety. | Jerry: Termination harms parental relationship; argues his intent and potential parole counseled against termination. | Held: Termination serves the child’s best interests—stable placement, lack of parent–child bond, father’s violent history weigh against continuing rights. |
| Whether appeal could proceed despite untimely notice | Jerry: Late filing attributable to counsel and merits a delayed appeal in interests of justice. | (No opposing appellee brief) | Held: Court exercised inherent power to allow a delayed appeal in termination cases for interests of justice; appeal heard. |
| Whether five‑year imprisonment ground (§600A.8(9)) was proven | Danielle: Father’s imprisonment made it unlikely he’d be released for five or more years. | Jerry: Eligible for parole in 2018; five‑year disqualification not established. | Held: District court did not find the five‑year imprisonment ground proven; termination rested on abandonment and best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (incarceration is not an automatic justification for lack of parent–child relationship)
- In re W.W., 826 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (financial non‑support can satisfy abandonment predicate)
- In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (standards for de novo review and abandonment burden)
- In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687 (Iowa 2010) (use of chapter 232 best‑interest framework in other termination contexts)
- Concerned Citizens of Se. Polk Sch. Dist. v. City Dev. Bd., 872 N.W.2d 399 (Iowa 2015) (official filing date is the court’s EDMS stamp)
- In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1998) (parent petitioning for termination must prove termination is in child’s best interests)
- In re S.A.J.B., 679 N.W.2d 645 (Iowa 2004) (indigent parents’ right to counsel in involuntary termination proceedings)
- In re D.W., 385 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1986) (due process requires effective assistance of appointed counsel in termination contexts)