In the Interest of A.H.-G., Minor Child
V.W., Mother-Appellant
N.G., Father-Appellant
Attorney for Appellant Mother
Mark D. Reed
Attorney for Appellant Father
Leah Patton
Attorney for Appellee State
Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney General
Guardian ad Litem
Erin E. Romar
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (11 pages)
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son. The mother argues that (1) the State did not prove a ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024) and (2) termination is not in the son’s best interest. The father argues that (1) the juvenile court should have granted a six-month extension to work towards reunification; (2) termination of his parental rights is not in the son’s best interest; (3) the parent–child bond exception applies under Iowa Code section 232.116(3); and (4) a guardianship is a better alternative for a permanency outcome. OPINION HOLDS: On the mother’s appeal, we agree that the State proved the statutory ground for termination—especially given her testimony agreeing that the son could not yet return to her custody at the time of the termination hearing—and that termination of the mother’s rights is in the son’s best interest. As for the father’s appeal, we see no basis to find that the son could have been placed in his custody with another six months when it was uncertain that the father would be released from prison and he agreed he would not be ready to care for the son. And we agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the son’s best interest, any parent–child bond does not warrant declining to terminate, and a guardianship is not appropriate here. We thus affirm on both appeals.
