In the Interest of J.B., Minor Child
21-1979
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- J.B., born 2019, was removed from parents Kelli and Forrest’s care in Feb 2021 after DHS investigated alleged domestic violence by father and methamphetamine use by both parents; child placed with foster family.
- Parents agreed to a CINA adjudication; the juvenile court set a dispositional hearing for September 7, 2021, at 1:00 p.m.
- County attorney filed a termination petition in late July and set the termination hearing for September 7 at 9:30 a.m.; notice of the termination hearing was served only by publication in the local newspaper.
- The parents (who lived in Wisconsin), and their attorneys, did not attend the 9:30 termination trial and later learned the trial had occurred when they appeared for the afternoon dispositional proceeding; the dispositional hearing was not held.
- Record contained no evidence the State conducted a reasonably diligent search for the parents despite available leads (father’s Wisconsin address, plea in Osceola County, DHS contacts, recent video call); court later entered a termination order and parents appealed.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the termination order and remanded because the State failed to satisfy Iowa Code §232.112’s notice/search requirements, denying the parents opportunity to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice by publication satisfied Iowa Code §232.112 and parents’ due process rights | Parents: publication was insufficient; State failed reasonably diligent search; parents had known contacts/addresses | State: served notice by publication and proceeded with hearing (implied that service was proper) | Court: vacated termination; publication alone was insufficient because State offered no proof of reasonably diligent search or effective service |
| Whether termination hearing could lawfully occur before the dispositional hearing | Parents: denial of process because termination occurred before dispositional hearing they expected to attend | State: proceeding was scheduled and held; termination supported on the merits (position in juvenile court) | Court: did not decide constitutional sequencing issue because termination order is void for lack of notice; directed that a dispositional hearing should occur before any new termination proceeding |
| Whether termination on the merits was appropriate under §232.116 | Parents: contest factual and legal sufficiency of termination findings | State: urged termination on statutory grounds alleged in petition | Court: declined to reach merits because termination order void for lack of proper notice; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.D., 921 N.W.2d 229 (Iowa 2018) (de novo review for termination proceedings and constitutional claims)
- In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 2014) (parental due process right to notice and hearing before termination)
- In re S.P., 672 N.W.2d 842 (Iowa 2003) (statutory notice under §232.112 requires reasonably diligent search before dispensing with personal service)
- In re K.M., 653 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa 2002) (parents entitled to notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- In re C.M., 652 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 2002) (Iowa Due Process Clause interpreted congruently with federal clause)
- Qualley v. State Fed. Sav. & Loan, 487 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (defines reasonable diligence in locating parties)
- Santi v. Santi, 633 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2001) (parental interest in custody as fundamental liberty interest)