IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 20–1266 Submitted January 20, 2021—Filed April 2, 2021 IN THE INTEREST OF A.B., A.C., and A.C., Minor Children, T.D., Mother, and S.W., Father, Appellants. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge. A mother of three children appeals termination of her parental rights and the father of one of the children appeals termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Oxley, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which Christensen, C.J., and Appel, Waterman, and Mansfield, JJ., joined. McDermott, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which McDonald, J., joined. Nicholas A. Bailey of Bailey Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Altoona, for appellant mother. Karen A. Taylor of Taylor Law Offices, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant father of A.C. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant Attorney General, and Kevin Brownell, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. 2 Kimberly A. Graham of Graham Law Collaborative, Indianola, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children. 3 OXLEY, Justice. This appeal involves the termination of parental rights of a mother to her three children and the termination of parental rights of the father of one of the children. Mom timely appealed. Dad of one of the children filed a timely notice of appeal but filed his petition on appeal two days late. He asks us to grant him a delayed appeal and excuse the untimeliness of his petition. As discussed below, we conclude we should recognize delayed appeals in termination-of-parental-rights cases in certain limited circumstances and grant the father’s application for delayed appeal. We therefore consider whether the termination of parental rights was proper as to both Mom and Dad. At the outset, we note that although the guardian ad litem (GAL) originally supported termination of parental rights, following the termination hearing she changed her recommendation. On appeal, she urges us to carefully scrutinize the record of this case and reverse the judgment of the juvenile court. Upon our de novo review of the record, we reverse termination as to Mom but not as to Dad. I. Factual Background and Proceedings. This case involves three children, all of whom have different biological fathers and the same biological mother. We refer to the mother as “Mom” throughout the case. From oldest to youngest, the children are A.B., born in December 2012; A.C.1, born in April 2017; and A.C.2, born in November 2018. A.B.’s father had minimal involvement in the case and did not appeal. A.C.2’s father has also been minimally involved and also did not appeal. He is an important figure in the background of the case since before A.C.2 was born, and since he has the same initials as two of the children, we will refer to him by his first name, Akoya. Dad is the father of A.C.1, has been involved in the case, and appealed termination 4 of his rights. We will refer to him as “Dad.” Notably, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals