In the Interest of M.H.-t., Minor Child, N.H.-t., Mother, M.J., Father
16-1373
| Iowa Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Child born November 2011; mother is petitioner-appellant seeking termination of the father's parental rights for abandonment under Iowa Code ch. 600A.8(3)(b).
- Mother told father of pregnancy in Feb 2011; father demanded abortion; in May 2011 father pled guilty to assault and a no-contact order (extended through June 2019) barred him from contacting mother and immediate family; communication via counsel was not prohibited.
- Mother did not list father on birth certificate or Title XIX paperwork; father learned of the child in Dec 2012, retained counsel, and filed a paternity action April 2013 seeking DNA testing and name on birth certificate.
- Paternity was established by DNA, but the action stalled with continuances; no temporary support or visitation orders entered; parties reportedly reached a settlement in March 2015 (support $245/mo and expert evaluation for visitation) but mother refused to sign.
- Mother filed termination petition in June 2015; district court denied termination in July 2016, finding mother failed to prove abandonment by clear and convincing evidence and termination was not in the child’s best interests; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father abandoned child under Iowa Code §600A.8(3)(b) | Father abandoned the child through lack of support and no contact, satisfying statutory abandonment (monthly visits or regular communication/support) | Father took legal steps (filed paternity suit) and was prevented from direct contact by a no-contact order; counsel advised waiting for court-ordered support | Court affirmed district court: abandonment not proven by clear and convincing evidence (mother failed to show intent to abandon) |
| Whether mother’s conduct barred finding of abandonment | Mother argued father had ability to pay (his support worksheet showed $245/mo) and could have used counsel to send support/communication | Father argued he followed counsel’s advice to await court order and mother obstructed settlement and contact | Court found father had taken steps (paternity filing) and mother’s refusal to sign settlement undermined her abandonment claim; intent to abandon not shown |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interests | Mother argued termination would serve child’s welfare | Father argued termination would cut off possible support and relationship; no adoptive home ready | Court agreed best interests did not favor termination (loss of financial support and potential father–child relationship) |
| Effect of no-contact order on abandonment claim | Mother contended the order prevented contact, but father still could have used counsel to support/communicate | Father relied on no-contact order and counsel’s advice as legitimate constraints | Court held the no-contact order did not automatically excuse lack of support/contact and noted counsel/legal avenues were available; nonetheless, overall record failed to show intent to abandon |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1998) (standard of review for termination proceedings and focus on child’s best interests)
- In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (abandonment requires both conduct and intent; interest without affirmative parenting can still indicate abandonment)
- In re W.W., 826 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (protective orders do not necessarily prevent a finding of abandonment)
- White v. Harper, 807 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (appellate handling when appellee does not file a brief)