Opinion
No. 2-971 / 02-1333
Filed April 4, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David L. Christensen, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The father also conditionally appeals. He requests this court affirm the termination or alternatively, if the mother's parental rights are restored, he also requests his rights be restored. AFFIRMED.
Patrick Payton of Patrick H. Payton Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Susan Larson Christensen, Harlan, for appellant-father.
Ryan Genest of Borseth, Genest Seibrecht, Altoona, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Larry Blumberg of Roehrick, Krull Blumberg, P.C., Des Moines, for minor child.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. Specifically, she contends good cause had been shown for revocation of her release of custody pursuant to Iowa Code section 600A.4(4) (2001). The father also conditionally appeals. He requests this court affirm the termination or alternatively, if the mother's parental rights are restored, he also requests his rights be restored. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings. On April 22 2002, Jodi gave birth to Kathryn in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The biological father, Thomas, was unaware Jodi was pregnant and had given birth to the baby girl. After giving birth, Jodi requested information from the hospital about adoption. She was contacted by Maggie DeWitte, an adoption coordinator with Catholic Council for Social Services, Inc. (Catholic Charities). On April 23, 2002, Jodi and DeWitte met at Catholic Charities in Council Bluffs. DeWitte explained the purpose of a custody release, the process of terminating parental rights, the adoption process, and Jodi's right to have three hours of counseling. She also told Jodi she could not sign a release of custody until seventy-two hours after the baby's birth and was entitled to revoke her release of custody for any reason within ninety-six hours of singing it. Jodi decided to pursue adoption without the benefit of an attorney or counseling services. During this initial meeting, Jodi selected the adoptive parents.
Jodi signed a release of custody on April 29, 2002. Paragraphs four and five of the release provided:
I understand that I may change my mind and revoke this Release of Custody within 96 hours from the time of signing this release by filing a written request to have the Release of Custody revoked with the Clerk of Juvenile Court, Polk County Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa within 96 hours of the time of signing this release. If I so request within 96 hours, the Court will order this release revoked."
If I fail to file a written request to have this release revoked within 96 hours of signing the same, I may, at any time prior to the entry of an order terminating parental rights, file a written request with the Clerk of Juvenile Court, Polk County Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa to revoke the release. The court may order this release revoked only upon clear and convincing evidence that good cause exists for revocation.
Jodi initialed both paragraphs of the release indicating she had been advised and understood what she had read. On May 3, 2002, Thomas learned about the birth of Kathryn when DeWitte contacted him to schedule a time to sign his release of custody. Three days later Thomas met with a representative from Catholic Charities, and he decided to sign the release. Neither parent revoked his or her release of custody within ninety-six hours of signing it. On May 30, 2002, Catholic Charities filed a petition for termination of Jodi's and Thomas's parental rights.
On June 10, 2002, Jodi filed a revocation of her release of custody contending good cause existed for revocation. At trial Thomas requested the juvenile court terminate Jodi's parental rights or alternatively, if the court revoked Jodi's release of custody, he requested that his release also be revoked. Following trial, the juvenile court terminated Jodi's and Thomas's parental rights. The court stated: "[Jodi] had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that good cause exists to allow her to revoke her release of custody." Jodi appeals. Thomas conditionally appeals.
Revocation for "Good Cause." Our appellate review is de novo. In re C.K., 315 N.W.2d 37, 40 (1982). According to Iowa Code section 600A.4(4) if a parent requests revocation within ninety-six hours, the release must be revoked. Iowa Code § 600A.4(4). Beyond this period the release will be revoked "only upon clear and convincing evidence that good cause exists for revocation." Id. "Good cause for revocation includes but is not limited to a showing that the release was obtained by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation of law or fact which was material to its execution." Id.
Jodi contends her release of custody was obtained by fraud. We disagree. There is no evidence in the record to support Jodi's contention. In fact, the evidence shows that Catholic Charities spent a considerable amount of time explaining to Jodi the details of the adoption process and her right to revocation. Further, we note Jodi was protected by the safeguards set forth in section 600A.4. First of all, she could not sign a release of custody until seventy-two hours after Kathryn's birth. Secondly, Jodi had ninety-six hours after signing the release to revoke it for any reason. Finally, Jodi was offered three hours of counseling which she waived. For these reasons, we find Jodi has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her release was obtained by fraud.
We also reject Jodi's argument that other good cause exists for revocation of her release. Specifically, she argues the language "[g]ood cause for revocation includes but is not limited to" implies that other good cause exists for revocation of her release besides fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation of law or fact." See id. Jodi alleges the following other good causes exist: lack of informed decision, best interest of the child, interest of the parent, public policy, and ethical considerations. She correctly notes that no Iowa case has defined other good cause and we decline to do so here. We find under any conceivable definition of other good cause, Jodi has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the other good causes alleged in her brief.
We affirm the termination of Jodi's and Thomas's parental rights.