911 N.W.2d 761
Iowa2018Background
- Father (B.G.) has history of methamphetamine use, domestic violence (strangulation of mother), child endangerment, and possession of automatic weapons; pled guilty to multiple state and federal crimes and was incarcerated.
- Mother (A.P.) obtained a dissolution stipulation granting her sole legal and physical custody and providing that post-release visitation by B.G. would depend on DOC treatment/completion and court modification on adequate proof.
- A.P. filed private termination petitions under Iowa Code chapter 600A alleging abandonment, failure to support, and a crime against a child; B.G. conceded incarceration for a crime against a child.
- At the termination hearing, evidence showed limited parent–child contact since incarceration, a stable home with mother’s new husband (J.P.) who seeks to adopt, but also B.G.’s positive prison behavior (program completion, NA attendance) and family support upon release.
- District court terminated B.G.’s parental rights; Court of Appeals affirmed; Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and reversed, holding termination was not proved to be in the children’s best interest by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.P.) | Defendant's Argument (B.G.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold: Whether statutory ground exists for termination | A.P. alleged abandonment, failure to support, and crime against a child | B.G. did not dispute incarceration for crime against a child | Court: Threshold met based on incarceration for a crime against a child (Iowa Code §600A.8(9)) |
| Scope of evidence: Whether court could consider pre‑stipulation conduct | A.P.: Chapter 600A allows consideration of relevant evidence; no statutory restriction | B.G.: Termination is effectively a modification of custody decree so only post‑stipulation changes should be considered; argued relitigation improper | Held: Issue not preserved below; Court declined to apply modification standard and rejected jurisdictional challenge, proceeding under 600A de novo review |
| Best interests: Whether termination is warranted by clear and convincing evidence | A.P.: Father's history of violence, drugs, threats, minimal financial/parental involvement, and bonding with stepfather support termination | B.G.: Shows rehabilitation in prison, program completion, desire to parent, family support, and stipulation reserved court jurisdiction for post‑release modification/visitation | Held: On balance, evidence did not show by clear and convincing proof that termination was in children’s best interest; reversal of district court judgment |
| Evidentiary issues on hearsay | A.P. sought admission of certain documents; admissibility challenged by B.G. | B.G. argued documents should be excluded as hearsay | Held: Supreme Court allowed Court of Appeals decision on evidentiary issues to stand (no change) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1998) (standard: de novo review and two‑step 600A termination framework)
- In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687 (Iowa 2010) (best‑interest factors and use of §232.116 guidance)
- In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743 (Iowa 1981) (past parental performance informs future care capability)
- In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (juvenile court jurisdiction over 600A terminations)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (preservation of error when trial court fails to rule)
- In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2012) (effect of severe chronic addiction on parental fitness)
- In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1990) (relapse risk and past conduct relevant to future risk)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2007) (judicial estoppel may be raised sua sponte)