In the Interest of M.D., K.T., G.A., E.A. and S.A., Minor Children
921 N.W.2d 229
| Iowa | 2018Background
- Mother with history of methamphetamine use and prior convictions had five children removed; children were placed with fathers prior to TPR hearing.
- Mother was incarcerated in South Dakota and moved to continue the TPR hearing or, alternatively, to participate by telephone.
- Juvenile court denied continuance but allowed telephone participation only for her testimony (at close of State’s case), with counsel physically present throughout.
- Court entered an order terminating the mother’s parental rights; the court of appeals affirmed.
- Iowa Supreme Court granted further review to determine due process requirements for incarcerated parents and remanded for expedited rehearing under a new procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuance was required so incarcerated parent could appear in person | Mother: continuance necessary for meaningful participation | State: delay harms child permanency; statutory limits on transporting out-of-county inmates | Court: denial of continuance was not an abuse of discretion given children’s best interests and mother could meaningfully participate by phone |
| Whether telephone participation may be limited to testimony only | Mother: limitation deprived her of opportunity to hear and rebut evidence; violated due process | State: limiting to testimony satisfied minimal due process; better practice would be more | Court: rejecting limitation; incarcerated parents must be allowed to participate in entire hearing by phone when feasible |
| What process is required if prison officials refuse full telephonic participation | Mother: needs full access to evidence before testifying | State: logistical/statutory obstacles may justify limits | Court: if full participation cannot be secured, court must provide expedited transcript/digital record and exhibits for parent to review before testifying, and allow recall/cross-examination |
| Preservation of due process claim | State (later): mother failed to preserve a constitutional due process claim | Mother: raised motion for continuance/telephone participation in trial court | Court: declined to entertain late-preservation challenge and decided on due process grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 2018) (standard of review for TPR appeals)
- In re C.M., 652 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 2002) (Mathews balancing in parental-rights context)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (weight given to trial court credibility findings)
- P.M. v. T.B., 907 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2018) (constitutional claims reviewed de novo)
- Webb v. State, 555 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1996) (telephone participation & counsel presence as due process in noncriminal context)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor due process balancing test)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened procedural protections in TPR cases)
- Orville v. Div. of Family Servs., 759 A.2d 595 (Del. 2000) (instructive authority requiring full telephonic participation or safeguards)