In the Interest of G.R., Minor Child
20-1692
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background:
- Child G.R., born 2013, originally removed and adjudicated CINA in 2013; paternal grandmother was appointed guardian in 2014 and parents had little/no contact thereafter.
- In 2019 the guardian moved; allegations of guardian alcohol misuse, lack of supervision, and sexual abuse by a relative led to removal and G.R. was placed with B.H. (a long‑time partner of the guardian) where he remained.
- The State provided services and pursued reunification until September 2020; after phone contact ended in March 2020 the parents had no further contact and did not follow through with services.
- The State filed a petition to terminate parental rights in September 2020; termination hearing occurred in December 2020.
- The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights under multiple grounds, including Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f); the father appealed only the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that existing guardianship precluded termination.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held guardianship does not preclude termination and that evidence supported that G.R. could not be returned to the father and that termination served the child’s best interests.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an existing guardianship precludes termination under §232.116(1)(f) | Guardianship means ultimate placement is controlled by guardian/probate, so parent’s rights should not be terminated while guardianship exists | Guardianship does not alter or negate the statutory elements for termination; child still may be unable to be returned to a parent | Guardianship does not preclude termination; court rejected father’s argument |
| Whether the statutory elements of §232.116(1)(f) were met (child over 4, adjudicated CINA, removed >12 months, could not be returned) | Father contended the guardian/probate control return, implying (f)(4) not satisfied | State showed the first three elements undisputed and presented evidence child could not be safely returned | Court found elements satisfied and (f)(4) established |
| Whether evidence supported that returning G.R. to father would be unsafe or detrimental | Father said he could take the child immediately and requested six months for a mental‑health evaluation | Evidence showed no meaningful contact, substance use, unresolved mental‑health issues, domestic violence, and refusal to engage in services | Court concluded lack of bond, safety concerns, and instability meant child could not be returned to father |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests (safety and permanent home) | Father urged reunification opportunity and more time | State and GAL pointed to child’s strong bond with B.H., continuity of placement and school, and need for permanency | Court held termination served child’s best interests and affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521 (Iowa 2019) (appellate review of termination is de novo)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (best interests of the child is primary consideration in termination)
- In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737 (Iowa 2011) (defining child’s safety and need for a permanent home as core best‑interest elements)
- In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (affirming that only one statutory ground need be proved to support termination)