In the Interest of W.T., Minor Child, 967 N.W.2d 315

Background

DHS removed W.T. (6 months old) after mother repeatedly allowed a registered sex offender around the children; State filed a CINA petition and later sought TPR of both parents.
Paternity of father (Dad) confirmed March 2020; Dad moved to Iowa in July 2020 but did not meet W.T. until January 17, 2021 (four days before the termination hearing).
Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights on April 6, 2021; notice of appeal deadline was April 21, 2021.
Dad’s counsel filed the notice of appeal on April 22 (one day late) and moved for a delayed appeal, citing calendaring error; the court of appeals denied relief.
Iowa Supreme Court granted further review, held delayed appeals in TPR cases are allowed where (1) parent clearly intended to appeal, (2) failure to perfect was outside parent’s control, and (3) delay was negligible; when counsel is at fault the reason is irrelevant.
On de novo review the Supreme Court affirmed termination: Dad failed to maintain significant, meaningful contact or provide a suitable home; the bond exception did not apply and additional time was not warranted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dad)	Held
Whether to allow a delayed appeal of an untimely notice of appeal	Deny unless parent shows intent, delay outside parent’s control, and negligible delay; earlier precedent suggested extenuating circumstances may be required	Dad intended to appeal; late filing was counsel’s inadvertence, not Dad’s fault; delay was one day/negligible	Allowed delayed appeal: reaffirmed three-part test (intent, outside parent’s control, negligible delay) and held counsel’s reason is irrelevant when failure is counsel’s fault
Whether State proved statutory grounds for TPR (Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h))	Dad had months but made almost no effort to parent, lacked stable income/household; placement with Dad was not safe or imminent	Dad argued he could have parented within six months and sought more time	Affirmed termination: clear and convincing evidence of both (e) and (h); Dad’s minimal contact and unsatisfactory living/financial situation supported termination
Whether additional time for reunification was required	Not warranted—impediments (unstable housing/transportation, questionable household) wouldn’t likely be resolved in six months; child’s need for permanency favors termination	Dad asked for six more months to remedy issues and assume care	Denied: statute requires court find removal need will no longer exist after extension; court found Dad failed to prove that and child’s best interests favored termination
Whether the parental-bond exception (§232.116(3)(c)) applied	No close parent–child relationship existed; one short visit did not show detriment from termination	Dad argued a nascent bond existed from the January visit	Denied: no close relationship; exception did not preclude termination

Key Cases Cited

In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 2021) (recognized limited availability of delayed appeals in TPR cases and set test: intent, failure outside parent’s control, negligible delay)
In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305 (Iowa 2021) (applied A.B. to allow delayed appeal where procedural delays were beyond incarcerated father’s control)
In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157 (Iowa 2020) (prior rule: untimely TPR appeals result in dismissal)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (attorney’s unreasonable failure to file a notice of appeal can constitute professionally unreasonable performance)
In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2016) (standard of de novo review in TPR appeals and factors for best-interests analysis)
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (State must prove termination by clear and convincing evidence)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (parent cannot wait until eve of termination to begin parenting; supports termination when parent’s late efforts are insufficient)
In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521 (Iowa 2019) (de novo review framework reiterated)