In the Interest of E.S. and R.S., Minor Children, H.S., Mother, C.S., Father, M.Z.
16-0066
| Iowa Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Parents Clayton (father) and Heather (mother) divorced in 2009; Clayton received physical custody of children E.S. and R.S.; Heather was later ordered to pay $600/month child support in a 2012 stipulated modification.
- Clayton and his fiancée Maggie filed a petition in June 2015 to terminate Heather’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b) (abandonment for children six months or older).
- Petitioners relied on journals, phone records, and testimony to show Heather’s contact with the children fell below statutory standards and was sporadic/traumatic.
- Heather produced her own records, photographs, and testimony showing more frequent contact, online/alternate-phone communications, and argued petitioners interfered with visitation (e.g., restrictive “contract,” blocked calls).
- Heather had mental-health and employment instability earlier but, beginning in 2014, obtained treatment, steady employment, and paid substantial child-support arrearages (about $20,232.50 since 2014).
- District court found abandonment and terminated Heather’s rights; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and reversed and remanded, finding petitioners failed to prove abandonment by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heather abandoned the children under Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b) | Clayton/Maggie: Heather’s contact and support were sporadic and below statutory minimums; thus abandonment is established. | Heather: Maintained substantial contact (visits, photos, online calls), provided reasonable financial support since 2014, and was prevented from more contact by petitioners and her prior mental-health/financial limits. | Reversed: petitioners failed to prove abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether Heather’s financial contributions met the predicate “substantial” support requirement | Petitioners: Heather historically failed to pay support and was noncompliant with obligations. | Heather: Early inability to pay due to instability; since 2014 paid over $20k and largely remedied arrearage—reasonable by her means. | Held Heather provided support in a reasonable amount given her circumstances. |
| Whether petitioners interfered with visitation/communication | Petitioners: Any limited contact was due to Heather’s conduct and instability. | Heather: Petitioners blocked calls, imposed a restrictive visitation “contract,” and Clayton unilaterally cut off contact after filing. | Held interference evidence undermined petitioners’ claim; custodial parent cannot unilaterally cancel visitation. |
| Burden and standard of proof (clear and convincing) | Petitioners: Evidence presented met the statutory standard. | Heather: Disputes about records, memory impairment of parties, and corrective steps reduce certainty. | Held petitioners did not meet the high civil standard; factual disputes and mitigation meant no clear and convincing proof of abandonment. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (frames de novo review and standards in termination proceedings)
- In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (defines clear and convincing standard in parental-rights context)
- In re W.W., 826 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (interprets the predicate financial-support requirement under § 600A.8(3)(b))