In the Interest of M.C., Minor Child, M.J., Father
17-0009
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- M.C. born 2015; mother voluntarily placed M.C. and older half-sibling with Safe Families for Children in Sept. 2015 due to homelessness and mental illness.
- DHS assumed custody while father was incarcerated pending probation revocation; father remained incarcerated throughout the case with a tentative release in 2020 following a sexual-offense conviction.
- M.C. was placed in foster care (Jan. 2016); both children adjudicated CINA in Apr. 2016.
- Father had minimal contact with M.C. after birth and did not share a bond; DHS determined facility visitation with the incarcerated father was not in the child’s best interests.
- DHS contacted and pursued out-of-state relative placements (mother and cousin); one home study approved, another conditionally approved; DHS arranged an overnight visit with the cousin’s household to keep siblings together.
- Juvenile court terminated father’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (Dec. 2016); father appealed arguing unreasonable efforts and due-process violations. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify | DHS failed to provide visitation or parenting services while father was incarcerated and delayed investigating out-of-state relatives | DHS contacted relatives, sought home studies, arranged overnight visit, and limited visitation to protect child’s best interests given father’s incarceration and offense | Affirmed: State proved reasonable efforts by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether child could be returned to father under §232.116(1)(h) | Father implied child could be reunified with services/time | Child could not be returned: father incarcerated with release years away, no parental bond, conviction for sexual offense involving a child | Affirmed: statutory grounds for termination satisfied |
| Whether father’s due-process rights were violated by alleged failure of reasonable efforts | Father contended lack of reasonable efforts violated constitutional due-process and sought more time/services | State argued procedural default and that reasonable efforts were made; reunification not feasible given circumstances | Not preserved on appeal (father failed to raise below); court did not reach merits |
| Whether appellate error preserved by filing timely notice of appeal | Father claimed appeal preserved issue by timely notice | Court explained notice of appeal does not preserve issues not raised and ruled in trial court | Affirmed: error not preserved; issues not raised in juvenile court are not for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review and weight of juvenile court fact findings)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (affirmance may rest on any statutory ground supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (credibility and deference to juvenile court findings)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 2006) (child’s best interests are primary consideration)
- In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (visitation governed by child’s best interests)
- In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (reasonable-efforts requirement impacts burden to prove return is unsafe)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issue preservation requirement for appellate review)
- In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2003) (constitutional claims must be presented to district court to preserve error)
- State v. Pickett, 671 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa 2003) (purpose of error-preservation rules to allow district court correction and provide appellate record)