In the Interest of A.G., Minor Child
This text of In the Interest of A.G., Minor Child (In the Interest of A.G., Minor Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1908 Filed March 5, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., Minor Child,
N.G., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of parental rights to his child. AFFIRMED.
Richard Hollis, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Michelle R. Becker, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Tonya A. Oetken of Oetken Law Firm, Inc., Ankeny, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
The father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his child
A.G. (born 2019). Following a contested trial, the juvenile court found termination
of the father’s rights in the best interest of the child but denied termination and
granted a six-month extension for the mother. The father appeals, challenging that
best-interests finding, disputing whether reasonable efforts were made toward
reunification, and urging a permissive exception. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings. The child’s parents were both
incarcerated in federal prison on gun-related convictions when he was a few
months old. The child was placed informally with relatives until the mother was
released from prison in 2020. The child was removed by the Iowa Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in late 2022 after the mother flipped her vehicle
with the child inside and was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
The child was placed briefly with the mother’s paramour, then foster care, and then
placed with a relative. The child has remained in the relative placement since then,
where his physical, emotional, and medical needs are being met.
The father remained in federal prison as of the termination trial. And the
record indicates his federal incarceration followed a string of state-court
convictions for assault-related crimes, some of which originated as
domestic-abuse charges. The earliest the father will be released from federal
prison is late 2025—well beyond six months after trial. And even then, he would
be placed at a halfway house where he could not resume custody. While
incarcerated, the father has attended classes and had phone calls with and sent
gifts to the child. As the juvenile court put it, the child “has not shown much interest 3
in the calls.” In testimony, the father candidly admitted he was not capable of
resuming custody as of trial. And the HHS worker testified that the father had
stopped writing letters because the father disagreed with how the case was being
handled. The father’s core request was that the child be returned to the mother’s
custody or, failing that, an extension of time and placement in a guardianship with
the relative.
The child has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had
some behavioral challenges. The child was frequently dysregulated after visits
with the mother, though this improved some over time. According to the mother,
the child generally knows who the father is but has no understanding of why he
has been “away” virtually the entirety of the child’s life. When the guardian ad litem
(GAL) spoke with the child, the child indicated placement with the relative was
going well and he wanted to stay there. The court appointed special advocate
(CASA) and HHS worker made similar observations.
At the termination trial, the father called as a witness the mother of five of
his other children. She testified that she thought he was a good father to those
children, was “as present as he can be,” and had contributed financially. And she
opined that she thought the child should be returned to the mother.
The county attorney, HHS, the CASA, and the GAL recommended
termination of both parents’ parental rights. The juvenile court found terminating
the mother’s rights was not in the child’s best interests, but it concluded otherwise
with respect to the father and terminated his rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) (2024). The father appeals, challenging whether termination
was in the child’s best interests, whether HHS made reasonable efforts toward 4
reunification, and whether any of the permissive exceptions applied.1 We review
de novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).
Best Interests. The father challenges whether termination was in the
child’s best interests, and the State contests error preservation because the father
did not challenge termination on this basis below. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641
N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that
issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we
will decide them on appeal.”). The State is correct: the father did not challenge
termination below at all. But a majority of this court recently held he was not
required to do so. See In re J.R., No. 24-0942, 2025 WL 52738, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. Jan. 9, 2025) (en banc). So we must reject the error-preservation challenge.
On the merits, we agree with the juvenile court that terminating the father’s
rights is in the child’s best interests. In making this determination, we give primary
weight “to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term
nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The father has been
absent from the child’s life due to incarceration for repeated criminal conduct. He
1 The father’s petition on appeal consists largely of a few legal citations, lengthy
block-quotes from the juvenile court ruling, and a statement that he “disagrees.” Our rules make clear that an appellant must explain “why” he or she disagrees by making legal argument. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d), .1401–Form 5; In re K.D., No. 21-0581, 2021 WL 3897419, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2021) (discussing these rules). And we disapprove of the approach taken by the father’s petition on appeal. That said, we have done our best to address the issues presented without undertaking the father’s research and advocacy for him. See Ronnfeldt v. Shelby Cnty. Chris A. Myrtue Mem’l Hosp., 984 N.W.2d 418, 421 (Iowa 2023) (“We generally will not do a party’s work for them, particularly if that requires us to assume a partisan role and undertake the party’s research and advocacy.” (cleaned up)). 5
cannot take an active role in parenting now or in the near future. And he has
virtually no relationship with the child. In contrast, the child’s current placement
has been tending well to the child’s needs, including facilitating needed therapy
and mental-health treatment. Termination is in the child’s best interests.
Reasonable Efforts. The father next asserts HHS did not make
reasonable efforts toward reunification. To preserve error on such a claim, parents
must “object when they claim the nature or extent of services is inadequate,” and
they must generally do so before the termination trial. In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of A.G., Minor Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ag-minor-child-iowactapp-2025.