21 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of A.M., Minor Child, A.M., Fathergreen2 sentences2019See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa 2014). 2017A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 111 . 2 At the time of the termination of parental rights hearing, K.D. was three years old and A.D. was four years old. | 6 | 7 |
In the Interest of J.S.green2 sentences2016See In re J.S., 470 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (holding a parent is afforded due process during termination-of-parental-rights proceedings if given notice of the proceedings, represented by counsel who is present at the proceedings, and afforded the opportunity to present testimony by deposition); see also In re K.M., No. 16-0795, 2016 WL 4379375 , at *3-4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2016); In re J.G., No. 15- 1755, 2016 WL 363747 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016); In re N.H., No. 15- 0691, 2015 WL 5577069 , at *2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015); In re N.W., No. 12-1233, 2012 WL 38606 2012Similarly, in In re Interest of J.S., our court of appeals held that a parent’s physical presence is not required at a termination of parental rights hearing when counsel is present on the parent’s behalf. 470 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa Ct.App.1991); cf. In re Interest of T.C., 492 N.W.2d 425, 428-29 (Iowa 1992) (finding father was not denied his due process rights at child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) adjudicatory hearing due to fact that father was in county jail at time of service of notice and CINA proceedings and that it was unlikely that court would have entered order different from what it did | 2 | 2 |
In Re P.L.green1 sentence2026See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (noting we only review those steps challenged by the parent). | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Our supreme court faced a similar question in a postconviction-relief action and rejected the applicant’s assertion that section 622.82 gave the applicant the “right 11 to attend his postconviction proceeding.” Webb v. State, 555 N.W.2d 824, 825 (Iowa 1996). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of M.D., K.T., G.A., E.A. and S.A., Minor Childrengreen1 sentence2020First, I disagree In re M.D. settled the question of whether a juvenile court violates a parent’s constitutional rights by rejecting her request to attend the termination-of-parental-rights hearing in person. 921 N.W.2d 229, 234 (Iowa 2018) (explaining “mother did not ask us to recognize a due process right for incarcerated parents to be physically present at a termination hearing”). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of C.F.-h., Minor Child, C.H., Fathergreen1 sentence2018See Iowa Code § 232.116 (1)(f)(1)-(4) ; see also In re C.F.-H ., 889 N.W.2d 201 , 205 (Iowa 2016) (discussing paragraph (f) ). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of E.J.R.green1 sentence2017In re Estate of Evjen, 448 N.W.2d 23, 24 (Iowa 1989); accord In re E.J.R., 400 N.W.2d 531 , 532–33 (Iowa 1987) (holding hearsay evidence is admissible in a termination-of-parental-rights hearing). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of A.M.S.green1 sentence2017To satisfy its burden of proof, the State must establish “[t]he child cannot be protected from some harm 10 which would justify the adjudication of the child as a child in need of assistance.” See Iowa Code § 232.102 (5)(2); see also In re A.M.S., 419 N.W.2d 723, 725 (Iowa 1988). | 1 | 1 |
In Re RKgreen1 sentence2017In re R.K., 649 N.W.2d 18, 20 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted). introduced at a review hearing is much different than the purpose and evidence to be introduced at a termination of parental rights hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Evjen v. Novotny Ex Rel. Novotnygreen1 sentence2017In re Estate of Evjen, 448 N.W.2d 23, 24 (Iowa 1989); accord In re E.J.R., 400 N.W.2d 531 , 532–33 (Iowa 1987) (holding hearsay evidence is admissible in a termination-of-parental-rights hearing). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Kbgreen1 sentence2016See In re J.S., 470 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (holding a parent is afforded due process during termination-of-parental-rights proceedings if given notice of the proceedings, represented by counsel who is present at the proceedings, and afforded the opportunity to present testimony by deposition); see also In re K.M., No. 16-0795, 2016 WL 4379375 , at *3-4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2016); In re J.G., No. 15- 1755, 2016 WL 363747 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016); In re N.H., No. 15- 0691, 2015 WL 5577069 , at *2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015); In re N.W., No. 12-1233, 2012 WL 38606 | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of M.W. and Z.W., Minor Children, R.W., Mothergreen1 sentence2016See Iowa Code § 232.116 (1)(h)(4); see also, e.g., In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 224 (Iowa 2016) (“[T]here is clear and convincing evidence in the record that the children could not safely be returned to the custody of [the parent] . . . at the time of the termination hearing.”); A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 112 (“The record . . . shows [the child] could not be returned to the care of her parents at the time of the hearing.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re JOgreen1 sentence2016See id. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mbgreen1 sentence2016See In re J.S., 470 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (holding a parent is afforded due process during termination-of-parental-rights proceedings if given notice of the proceedings, represented by counsel who is present at the proceedings, and afforded the opportunity to present testimony by deposition); see also In re K.M., No. 16-0795, 2016 WL 4379375 , at *3-4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2016); In re J.G., No. 15- 1755, 2016 WL 363747 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2016); In re N.H., No. 15- 0691, 2015 WL 5577069 , at *2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015); In re N.W., No. 12-1233, 2012 WL 38606 | 1 | 1 |
In Interest of ACgreen1 sentence2015The mother insists that the child could be safely returned to her care at the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing because she was now living with relatives, stating she had been able “to care for her child from birth until the regrettable one time incident in June.” Though there is no question that the mother loves the child, she admitted at the hearing she had not “done anything specifically different than what [she] did before or . . . learn[ed] new skills.” As we have stated numerous times, children are not equipped with pause buttons, and the “crucial days of childhood canno | 1 | 1 |
Lynn G. Lamasters Vs. State of Iowagreen1 sentence2015See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 864 (Iowa 2012) (holding error is not preserved if the issue is not properly presented before the district court). 11 financially unable to visit the child or when prevented from visiting the child by the person having lawful custody of the child. (3) Openly living with the child for a period of six months within the one-year period immediately preceding the termination of parental rights hearing and during that period openly holding himself or herself out to be the parent of the child. | 1 | 1 |
In Re SDgreen1 sentence2015“The burden of showing grounds for recusal is on the party seeking recusal.” In re S.D., 671 N.W.2d 522, 528 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Atgreen1 sentence2015See In re A.T., 744 N.W.2d 657 , 665–66 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of J.c, Minor Child. D.C., Fathergreen1 sentence2015See J.C., 857 N.W.2d at 505 . | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of T.C.green1 sentence2012Similarly, in In re Interest of J.S., our court of appeals held that a parent’s physical presence is not required at a termination of parental rights hearing when counsel is present on the parent’s behalf. 470 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa Ct.App.1991); cf. In re Interest of T.C., 492 N.W.2d 425, 428-29 (Iowa 1992) (finding father was not denied his due process rights at child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) adjudicatory hearing due to fact that father was in county jail at time of service of notice and CINA proceedings and that it was unlikely that court would have entered order different from what it did | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of G.A.
green
1 sentence2023“Substantial and continuous or repeated contact” is demonstrated by at least one of the following: (1) Visiting the child at least monthly when physically and financially able to do so and when not prevented from doing so by the person having lawful custody of the child. (2) Regular communication with the child or with the person having the care or custody of the child, when physically and financially unable to visit the child or when prevented from visiting the child by the person having lawful custody of the child. (3) Openly living with the child for a period of six months within the one-ye | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Myers v. Emke
green
1 sentence2017The IDOC appealed the matter to the Iowa Supreme Court, and that court summarily reversed the juvenile court’s order, citing Iowa Code section 622.82 (2017) and Myers v. Emke, 476 N.W.2d 84, 86 (Iowa 1991). 4 The termination-of-parental-rights hearing was held August 16, 2017, with the mother’s attorney appearing physically on her behalf at the hearing and the mother appearing via speakerphone from the ICIW. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.
green
2 sentences1990Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Serv., 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (refusal to appoint counsel for indigent parent in termination of parental rights proceeding not automatically violative of procedural due process guarantee, applying balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). 1990Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Serv., 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (refusal to appoint counsel for indigent parent in termination of parental rights proceeding not automatically violative of procedural due process guarantee, applying balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences1990Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Serv., 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (refusal to appoint counsel for indigent parent in termination of parental rights proceeding not automatically violative of procedural due process guarantee, applying balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). 1990Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Serv., 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (refusal to appoint counsel for indigent parent in termination of parental rights proceeding not automatically violative of procedural due process guarantee, applying balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.