In the Interest of Z.G., Minor Child, R.H., Father
16-2187
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- Child Z.G. born with multiple controlled substances in his system; removed from mother's custody four days after birth. Father (R.H.) later established paternity but was incarcerated throughout proceedings.
- Child adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA). Father participated in hearings by phone; both parents’ rights were later terminated (mother not party to appeal).
- Father faced state and federal sentences; expected federal term of several years, so not available to care for child at termination hearing.
- Juvenile court terminated father's parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (h); on appeal this court addressed (h) (termination for children three years or younger removed from parents’ custody).
- Key contested issues on appeal: whether statutory grounds were proved (including the “removed from physical custody” element post–In re C.F.-H.), best interests of the child, closeness-of-bond exception, and whether incarceration alone required termination or justified a six‑month extension.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved statutory ground under §232.116(1)(h) (including “removed from physical custody”) | Cites C.F.-H.; contends removal from father’s physical custody not established and conditions leading to adjudication no longer exist | Child was removed from a parent (mother) for requisite period; father’s incarceration constitutes adjudicatory harm and child could not be returned “at the present time” | Affirmed: removal from mother satisfies the statutory removal element; clear and convincing evidence child could not be returned to father due to incarceration |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests | Father agreed child needs permanency and stability; argued termination not appropriate given claimed bond and his participation | State: permanency and adoptive placement available; child cannot wait years for father’s uncertain release | Affirmed: best interests favor termination and adoption by current custodians |
| Whether closeness-of-bond exception (§232.116(3)(c)) prevents termination | Father argued closeness of bond would make termination detrimental | State: father had virtually no parenting history (met child once); no evidence termination would be detrimental | Held: exception not met — termination not detrimental due to lack of established parent–child relationship |
| Whether incarceration alone precludes termination or justified six‑month extension | Father argued imprisonment should not automatically lead to termination and sought six‑month extension | State argued child’s need for permanency outweighs father’s incarceration; additional six months would not change father’s situation | Held: incarceration does not automatically preclude termination; extension denied because father’s expected federal sentence meant no meaningful change in six months; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F.-H., 889 N.W.2d 201 (Iowa 2016) (interpreting “removed from physical custody” requirement in §232.116(1)(h))
- In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review and timing reference for "at the present time" in termination hearings)
- In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (three-step analysis for termination under chapter 232)
- C.B. v. State, 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard in termination cases)
- In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1992) (adjudicatory harm need not be identical at termination as at removal)
- In re N.M., 491 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 1992) (statutory construction treating "parent(s)" as singular or plural)
- In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4 (Iowa 1993) (incarceration does not automatically prevent termination; parents may not use incarceration to excuse lack of relationship)