In the Interest of R.R., Minor Child, J.R., Father
16-1469
| Iowa Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Child born 2011; family came to DHS attention late 2015 after domestic violence in the mother's home with the child present.
- Father was served with CINA notice but did not participate in initial hearings; child adjudicated CINA Dec. 3, 2015; dispositional order January 4, 2016 left custody with mother and ordered services.
- DHS/FSRP repeatedly attempted contact (service, monthly letters, calls, texts); father largely unresponsive, missed hearings, and did not complete recommended evaluations or services.
- Father had not seen the child since December 2015, provided no financial support, and was incarcerated with pending criminal charges at the time of termination.
- State filed termination petition July 17, 2016 (pleading §232.116(1)(a),(e),(f)); court appointed counsel for father July 21; termination hearing Aug. 18, 2016.
- Juvenile court terminated father’s rights under Iowa Code §232.116(1)(e); father appealed arguing lack of counsel in CINA, inadequate DHS reunification efforts, request for six-month extension, and that child’s placement with a relative weighed against termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (State/DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s termination should be reversed for lack of counsel in the underlying CINA proceedings | Father: He lacked counsel during CINA so termination unfair | State: Father was given opportunities to obtain counsel, failed to do so; counsel later appointed for termination | Court: No relief — father had opportunity to secure counsel and failed to appear; claim merits no relief |
| Whether grounds for termination under §232.116(1)(e) were proven by clear and convincing evidence | Father: DHS did not give him a meaningful opportunity to maintain/contact child or resume care; seeks 6‑month extension | State: DHS made reasonable efforts (service, letters, calls, texts); father was unresponsive and refused evaluations/services | Court: Held §232.116(1)(e) proven—father failed to maintain significant/meaningful contact and made no reasonable efforts |
| Whether a six‑month extension for reunification should have been granted | Father: Would comply with services if given more time | State: Father incarcerated, uncertain release and compliance; child should not wait indefinitely | Court: Denied extension — likelihood of resolution within six months not shown; child’s interests prevail |
| Whether permissive exception (§232.116(3)) applies because child placed with relative (mother) | Father: Relative placement argues against termination; no harm if rights preserved | State: Permissive factors are discretionary; factual record doesn't favor preserving parental rights | Court: Exception not applied; termination in child’s best interests affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standards and three-step de novo review for termination appeals)
- In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (weight afforded to trial court factual findings and credibility)
- In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 2010) (child should not be forced to wait indefinitely for parental stability)
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (§232.116(3) permissive exceptions are discretionary)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (discussion of §232.116(3) and its permissive nature)
- In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (discretion in applying subsection 3 factors)