In the Interest of C.F.-h., Minor Child, C.H., Father
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 112
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Child C.F.-H. adjudicated CINA in Nov. 2012 after domestic violence and safety concerns; DHS implemented a safety plan and placed physical custody with the mother.
- Father was given visitation at DHS discretion, never obtained continuous physical custody after DHS involvement, had substance-abuse and compliance problems, and repeatedly failed services.
- DHS filed to terminate the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2015) based on the statutory "removed from physical custody" time requirements.
- The district court terminated the father’s rights; the court of appeals affirmed. The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
- The primary legal question was whether the statutory phrase "removed from the physical custody" requires a prior physical custody status that was later changed (a dynamic removal via court order or DHS action) or whether mere absence of custody (the child never having been in the parent’s physical care) satisfies the requirement.
- The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the district court, holding the statute requires a change in custody (a dynamic removal), not mere absence of custody; three justices dissented, arguing the record showed a de facto removal and would have affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "removed from the physical custody" in §§ 232.116(1)(e) & (f) | "Removed" requires a court-ordered removal under §§ 232.78/232.95/232.96; father never received required notice and never had physical custody to be "removed" | Formal removal order not required; child has always been with mother so child was "removed" from father (i.e., father never had custody) | Court: "Removed" implies a dynamic change in custody (movement from custody to noncustody); mere absence of physical custody is insufficient to meet the statutory element. The district court’s termination reversed. |
| Whether statutory language permits terminating a noncustodial parent's rights when the parent never had physical custody | Father: Statute presupposes prior physical custody that was taken away; otherwise statutory terms like "resume" and "returned" are incoherent | State: Practical focus on the child’s separation from parent; statutory history broadened grounds so formal transfer not required | Court: Context, ordinary usage, and legislative history favor requiring an actual change in custody; statutes should be construed consistently across chapter 232. |
| Relevance of legislative history/amendment (1992) that changed custody-transfer language | Father: Legislative change does not eliminate the need for a prior custody change; amendment mainly sped calculation timing | State: Amendment shows less formality required; separation suffices | Court: Fiscal note indicates timing change, not substantive elimination of the dynamic removal concept; overall statutory context supports requiring removal as a change. |
| Preservation/waiver of contention that child was actually removed from father | Father: challenged on appeal that removal element unmet | State: conceded below that child always remained with mother and had never been in father’s physical custody; did not argue on appeal that a removal occurred | Court: Because State conceded and did not preserve an argument that a removal actually occurred as to the father, the court did not reach or accept any post-hoc contention that the record shows a removal; issue effectively not preserved for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review for statutory construction in juvenile matters)
- In re A.M., 856 N.W.2d 365 (Iowa 2014) (chapter 232 construed to favor reunification and child welfare)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (preservation rule; appellate issues must be preserved)
- In re A.E., 572 N.W.2d 579 (Iowa 1997) (use of "removal" language in child-welfare context; Indian Child Welfare Act discussion)
- In re N.M., 491 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 1992) (statutory treatment of noncustodial parents and application of termination provisions)