In the Interest of D.C., Minor Child
21-0308
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- D.C., born November 2019, was removed from parental custody at birth and has never returned; placed with paternal grandmother about five months after removal and legal custody was with grandmother at the time of the termination hearing.
- The father experienced ongoing serious mental-health problems, multiple hospitalizations, unstable housing and placements, was dismissed from a group home for uncontrollable behavior, and exhibited aggression and threats during visits and meetings.
- DHS had active safety concerns (including an arrest warrant and tampering with a gas stove) and the father refused to sign releases that would allow provider communication.
- The father executed a written sixteen-paragraph consent to termination on January 13, 2021; at the February 2, 2021 termination hearing the father confirmed his consent after a recess and his attorney reviewed the form with him.
- The district court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(a) and (h); the father appealed, arguing the consent was not voluntary and intelligent and that termination was not in the child’s best interests and a permissive exception should apply.
- The Court of Appeals held the father failed to preserve his challenge to the statutory grounds/consent and, on de novo review, found termination was in D.C.’s best interests and the permissive exception did not apply; it affirmed the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of challenge to statutory grounds / voluntariness of consent | Father did not raise voluntariness at trial; issue unpreserved | Consent was not voluntary and intelligent | Unpreserved—appeal cannot raise voluntariness for first time; claim rejected |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests | Termination is in child’s best interests: child out of home since birth; stable, attached placement with grandmother who wishes to adopt | Termination not in child’s best interests (first raised on appeal) | Termination is in child’s best interests |
| Whether permissive exception (§ 232.116(3)(a)) applies because a relative has custody | Permissive exception should not apply because no evidence child would be disadvantaged and permanence through adoption by grandmother is available | Permissive exception should apply due to relative placement | Exception not applied; no evidence termination would disadvantage child |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (standard of de novo review in termination proceedings)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explained)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (best-interest focus in termination cases)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (error-preservation principle requiring issues be raised and decided below)
- In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (consideration of a child’s long-range as well as immediate interests)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (analysis of whether a child will be disadvantaged by termination)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (permissive factors under § 232.116(3) are discretionary, not mandatory)