Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 20-0267

For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here

In the Interest of T.H., H.H., and J.H., Minor Children

C.H., Father-Appellant

Attorney for Appellant Father

Alicia M. Stuekerjuergen

Attorney for Appellee State

Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant Attorney General

Guardian ad Litem

Justin Stonerook

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
20-0267
Date Published:
Jul 22, 2020
Summary

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Ty Rogers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He challenges the juvenile court’s permanency goal, the grounds authorizing termination, whether the State made reasonable efforts toward reunification, whether termination is in the children’s best interests, whether permissive statutory exceptions should be applied to preclude termination, and whether his due process rights were violated.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court’s permanency order is not a final appealable order, and it is subsumed into the termination proceeding, so we do not address it.  The State established statutory grounds authorizing termination.  Because the father failed to alert the juvenile court to his reasonable efforts challenge prior to the termination hearing, he waived any challenge.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  There is no compelling reason to apply a permissive statutory exception to preclude termination.  And because the father failed to present his due process claim to the juvenile court, it is not preserved for our review.

© 2022 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.