In the Interest of R.T., Minor Child, K.T., Grandmother, R.N., Mother, 16-1343

Rachel (mother) and John (father) placed their daughter R.T. (born 2008) in a voluntary legal guardianship with paternal grandparents Kris and Larry in December 2011 after parental relapse and safety concerns.
The guardianship was intended to continue until R.T. turned 18 unless Rachel or John could provide a safe home sooner; grandparents provided primary physical and financial care thereafter.
Rachel struggled with substance abuse and intermittent employment; she had periods of regular visitation (including a 2014 period of alternating weekends) but visitation later became irregular; Kris testified visits were about two to three times per month in the six months before the termination hearing.
Kris filed a petition to terminate Rachel’s parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A in March 2016; Rachel was arrested for drug possession in April 2016 and received a deferred judgment prior to the July 2016 hearing.
The juvenile court terminated Rachel’s parental rights under Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b) for abandonment; on appeal the Iowa Court of Appeals conducted de novo review and reversed, finding Kris failed to prove statutory abandonment and termination was not in the child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kris)	Defendant's Argument (Rachel)	Held
Whether Rachel abandoned R.T. under Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b) (failure to maintain substantial, continuous or repeated contact, including economic support and monthly visits when able)	Rachel made only marginal efforts: she provided no monetary support after 2011, visits decreased to less than monthly, and she failed to maintain sufficient contact to avoid abandonment.	Rachel lacked means to provide financial support at guardianship outset and thereafter; she did maintain ongoing visitation (about 2–3 times/month) and sent occasional gifts; placing the child in guardianship was a responsible step, not abandonment.	Reversed: court found Kris failed to prove the financial-support threshold (Rachel lacked means) and visitation/communication satisfied the statutory contact element.
Whether terminating Rachel’s parental rights was in R.T.’s best interests	Given Rachel’s continued substance-abuse issues and instability, termination would provide permanency and protect the child’s welfare.	Rachel retains a strong bond and place of importance in R.T.’s life; termination is not warranted where the parent-child bond and the child’s expressed interest weigh against severing ties.	Reversed: record showed a meaningful mother-child bond and thriving guardianship; termination was not shown to be in R.T.’s best interests.

In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1998) (standard of de novo review in chapter 600A termination proceedings; child’s best interests paramount)
In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687 (Iowa 2010) (factors to consider in best-interests analysis: financial obligations, continued interest, communication, parent’s place in child’s life)
In re Guardianship of Sams, 256 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1977) (parents should be encouraged to seek help; voluntary guardianship does not automatically bar later termination but parental preference is presumptive)
In re W.W., 826 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (economic-contribution threshold in abandonment analysis not limited to court-ordered support)
In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (superficial or marginal visitation can support abandonment when coupled with prolonged absence)
Hurlbert v. Hines, 178 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 1970) (discussing presumption favoring parental custody and focus on child’s best interests)