For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here.
In the Interest of N.F., E.M., H.M., K.M., and L.T., Minor Children
K.J., Mother-Appellant
C.T., Father-Appellant
Attorney for Appellant Mother
Jonathan Willier
Attorney for Appellant Father
Lynnette M. Lindgren
Attorney for Appellee State
Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney General
Guardian ad Litem
Debra A. George
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (14 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her five children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2024). A father separately appeals the termination of his rights to the youngest child—both parties’ son. The mother and father each argue that the State did not prove a ground for termination. The mother also argues that guardianship was not properly considered as an alternative permanency option. And the father argues that termination was not in the best interest of his son. OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports terminating the mother and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) because both parents failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the children. Termination of the father’s parental rights is in the son’s best interest given the father’s failure to obtain substance-use or mental-health treatment, the need for permanency in the son’s life, and the son’s positive foster-home environment. And guardianship is not a viable option here, especially since the mother did not propose any concrete plan for guardianship.
