In the Interest of R.W., Minor Child, K.W., Mother
16-1856
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- R.W., born 2012, was removed in Sept. 2015 after mother was found unresponsive and tested positive for cocaine; mother has prior terminations for three other children and ongoing substance‑abuse and mental‑health issues.
- Mother engaged in DHS services, substance‑abuse treatment, counseling, and visitation during the CINA case, but concerns remained (refusal to acknowledge substance problem, alcohol found once in home, association with a known sex offender).
- Permanency order granted mother three additional months (May 21, 2016); termination petition filed July 13, 2016.
- Mother moved to dismiss or continue (Aug. 4, 2016) arguing scheduling/time concerns; hearing set for Aug. 24, 2016 — court imposed an approximately two‑hour limit and capped closing argument at one minute.
- Mother’s counsel indicated additional witnesses were present and would testify; the court denied keeping the record open for letters and the hearing proceeded; court terminated parental rights (Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f), (h), (l)) on Oct. 17, 2016 and placed R.W. with paternal aunt.
- On appeal, the court found the imposed two‑hour limit violated the mother’s procedural due‑process right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard and reversed and remanded for a new termination hearing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother was denied procedural due process by limited hearing time | Two‑hour cap (and one‑minute closing) prevented calling witnesses and presenting contested evidence; motion to dismiss/continue preserved the claim | State argued mother failed to preserve error and emphasized need for expedient permanency | Court held time limit violated due process because it denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard; reversed and remanded for new hearing before different judge |
| Whether denial of opportunity to present witnesses/letters deprived mother of fair hearing | Mother argued counsel identified available witnesses and requested record be kept open for letters when time ran out | State did not show prejudice was not real or that procedures were adequate | Court found denial of opportunity to present witnesses/letters (and failure to allow offer of proof) contributed to due‑process violation |
| Whether scheduling/continuance practice impaired preservation of claims | Mother argued rescheduling of motion hearing to same day as termination (at State’s request) thwarted chance to preserve error | State argued procedural default | Court treated preservation facts as sufficient to reach merits given record and denial of earlier hearing opportunity |
| Need for new judge on remand | Mother sought a new judge for fairness | State did not contest remand venue strongly in opinion | Court ordered new termination hearing before a different judge to protect fairness and appearance of impartiality |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.M., 652 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 2002) (parents have fundamental liberty interest; State must meet due‑process requisites in termination proceedings)
- In re K.M., 653 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa 2002) (parents entitled to meaningful opportunity to be heard in termination cases)
- In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867 (Iowa 1994) (due process includes notice, confrontation, counsel, impartial decision maker, evidence‑based decision)
- In re S.P., 672 N.W.2d 842 (Iowa 2003) (notice and opportunity to be heard are rudimentary due‑process demands in parental‑rights cases)
- Spitz v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 881 N.W.2d 456 (Iowa 2016) (court calendar management must conform to due process; time limits cannot be arbitrary or inflexible)
- In re Marriage of Seyler, 559 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa 1997) (due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1971) (fundamental due‑process principle that affected parties must have meaningful opportunity to be heard)