M.B., Father, Respondent-Appellant. v. << (2023)

M.B. appeals the private termination of his parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 600A.8(10) (2022). Upon review, we affirm the termination.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

M.B is the father of C.B. and K.B. On December 21, 2021, the father was convicted of two counts of lascivious acts with a child, a class “C” felony, and one count of lascivious acts with a child, a class “D” felony. He was sentenced to serve two ten-year and one five-year sentences consecutively. His children were not the victims.

On June 21, 2022, the children's mother filed a petition to terminate the father's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 600A.8(10), alleging he was convicted of a felony sex offense against a minor, she was divorced from or never married to the father, and he was serving a minimum sentence of confinement greater than five years.

The father was appointed a guardian ad litem by the juvenile court per Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.211. Attorney Larry Woods acted as the father's attorney throughout the course of the proceedings.

On September 12, the juvenile court held a hearing on the termination of the father's parental rights; the father participated by telephone. His parental rights were terminated pursuant to section 600A.8(10). The father consented to the termination at the hearing but, on September 23, he sought to rescind his consent and vacate the termination order. The juvenile court denied his request.

The father appeals, challenging the termination of his parental rights on the grounds he did not understand the nature of the proceedings and he was not represented by counsel.

II. Standard of Review

Private termination proceedings under chapter 600A are reviewed de novo. In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998). Weight is to be given to the trial court's findings of fact, especially as to the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them. Id. The best interests of the children is the paramount consideration. Iowa Code § 600A.1.

III. Analysis

The interest of parents in raising their children has long been recognized as a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); In re B.G.C., 496 N.W.2d 239, 244 (Iowa 1992). The liberty to parent does not disappear simply because an individual has not been a model guardian; something more is required. See Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753.

“Private termination proceedings under Iowa Code chapter 600A are a two-step process.” In re B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). The petitioning parent “must first prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for ordering termination of parental rights” and, second, “must prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of [the child].” Id. Section 600A.8(10) allows for the termination of parental rights if the following conditions are met:

The parent has been convicted of a felony offense that is a sex offense against a minor as defined in section 692A.101, the parent is divorced from or was never married to the minor's other parent, and the parent is serving a minimum sentence of confinement of at least five years for that offense.

The father does not dispute the section 600A.8(10) factors have been satisfied. Rather, M.B. asserts he did not understand the nature of the termination proceedings. But our review finds ample evidence to the contrary. The father maintains he believed “he was voluntarily consenting to termination under Iowa Code [section] 600A.8(1),[¹ ] but the lawyers involved were proceeding as though he was consenting to voluntarily waive his right to contest the elements of a termination under Iowa Code [section] 600A.8(10).” The record makes this position glaringly wrong.

The juvenile court ensured the father understood the nature of the September 12 termination proceeding:

Q. And you understand that these are a termination of your parental rights proceedings? A. I understand, yes.

Q. And it is my understanding that you are willing to consent to the termination based on the statutory grounds set forth in the petition? A. I am willing to proceed, because this is what they—they want, but I in no way want them to believe that I am abandoning them in any sense.

Q. And the code section is 600A.8(10) that you and I have reviewed, as far as each and every one of those elements; is that correct? A. We have reviewed those.

Q. Okay. And it is your belief and understanding that the petitioner can probably prove those to the level of clear and convincing evidence? A. I believe that—how do I word this? I believe that any evidence I provide—I believe that the information that they have would be enough to get the termination of rights.

(Emphasis added). Later, the father stated he understood he had a right to contest the termination of his parental rights and he “also kn[e]w [his] odds of winning.” We find the father understood the nature of the proceedings.

The termination of the father's parental rights and the trial court's subsequent denial of the father's request to vacate were proper. The mother satisfied all required elements of Iowa Code section 600A.8(10), and termination of the father's rights is in the children's best interests. Accordingly, we affirm.²

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Section 600A.8(1) allows termination of parental rights where “[a] parent has signed a release of custody pursuant to section 600A.4 and the release has not been revoked.” Section 600A.4 states: “A parent has been ordered to contribute to the support of the child or financially aid in the child's birth and has failed to do so without good cause.”

2.   M.B.’s argument that the trial court failed to appoint counsel is unpersuasive. While Mr. Woods was originally appointed as guardian ad litem, he clearly acted as M.B.’s attorney throughout this matter. Mr. Woods entered a notice of appearance in this matter and listed as counsel on the record in both the September 12 and October 17 proceedings.

BOWER, Chief Judge.