In the Interest of E.R., Minor Child, T.R., Father
16-1217
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Child E.R. was removed from parents' custody on November 5, 2015, later adjudicated CINA, and remained out of the parents' care through the termination hearing.
- The State filed a petition to terminate parental rights on April 22, 2016; the petition mistakenly alleged the six‑month removal period had already run by that filing date.
- The termination hearing occurred June 17, 2016; no live testimony was offered, the father was incarcerated and absent but represented by counsel, and the father presented no evidence.
- The juvenile court terminated the father's rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h); the appellate court focused on paragraph (h) (child under three removed for at least six consecutive months and cannot be returned).
- The father challenged sufficiency of proof, premature filing (timing of six‑month removal), and that the court incorrectly found him in procedural default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination under §232.116(1)(h) were proved | State: grounds met as of termination hearing | Father: petition was premature because six months had not elapsed when petition filed | Affirmed — court examines requirements as of termination hearing; six‑month removal requirement met |
| Whether father preserved timing/prematurity claim | State: claim waived because not raised below | Father: raises timing challenge on appeal | Not preserved; alternatively meritless because statutory period runs to hearing date |
| Whether court erred by finding father in default for not filing motion/answer or being absent | Father: no rule requires answer to termination petition; presence not required if represented | State: termination based on merits, counsel appeared | Finding of default was erroneous but harmless surplusage because termination upheld on merits |
| Whether father received due process while incarcerated and absent | Father: presence required | State: counsel appeared, notice given, ability to present evidence sufficed | Due process satisfied; representation at hearing adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review for TPR proceedings)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (three‑step statutory framework for termination)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (appellate affirmation may rest on any proved statutory ground)
- In re J.O., 675 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004) (statutory six‑month removal period is measured through termination hearing)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issues not raised below generally cannot be raised on appeal)