In re the Interest of Z.K., Minor Child
The father seeks further review after the court of appeals affirmed the termination of his parental rights. The father argues the court of appeals erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to the minor child.
Z.K., Father-Appellant
J.K., Mother-Appellant
Attorney for Appellant Father
Dean A. Fankhauser
Attorney for Appellant Mother
Teresa Ann O'Brien
Attorney for Appellee State
Ellen Ramsey-Kacena
Guardian ad Litem
Michelle M. Hynes
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Dec 14, 2021 9:00 AM
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J. and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ., Opinion by Ahlers, J., Dissent by Tabor, J. (13 pages)
The mother and the father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: We find the record at the time of the termination hearing does not show the Indian Child Welfare Act applies to this proceeding. Furthermore, the parents failed to present a reviewable issue arising from their claims of progress, and the parents waived any claim for additional or alternative services. Therefore, we affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights. DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the juvenile court correctly concluded Z.K. is not an Indian child protected under the Indian Child Welfare Act.