## Facts

- B.G.C. was born on February 8, 1991, to C.C. (“Cara”), an unmarried mother.
- Cara decided to place the child for adoption and executed a statutory release of parental rights naming “Scott” as the father; “Scott” also executed a release, and both signed waivers of notice for the termination hearing.
- The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Cara and “Scott” and placed custody with prospective adoptive parents R.D. and J.D., who maintained physical custody of the child from near birth.
- After the termination order, Cara moved to vacate the termination of her parental rights and for the first time identified D.S. (“Daniel”) as the child’s biological father.
- Daniel intervened in the adoption proceeding to assert parental rights; the juvenile court denied Cara’s motion to vacate.
- In the adoption case, the district court found Daniel was the biological father, had not released parental rights, and had not abandoned the child; it denied the adoption and ordered the child surrendered to Daniel.
- The prospective adoptive parents appealed and obtained a stay, keeping custody during appellate review; the court of appeals reversed the termination ruling regarding Cara and remanded.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and consolidated the termination and adoption appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to consider the mother’s motion to vacate the order terminating her parental rights.
2. Whether the termination of the mother’s parental rights should be set aside based on alleged defects in her statutory release.
3. Whether the biological father’s parental rights could be terminated or treated as extinguished based on abandonment or other statutory grounds.
4. Whether an adoption could be granted, and custody denied to the biological father, when his parental rights had not been lawfully terminated.

## Decision

- The court held the juvenile court had jurisdiction to consider the mother’s motion to vacate the termination order.
- The court affirmed the district court’s findings that Daniel was the biological father, had not released his parental rights, and had not abandoned the child.
- The court denied the prospective adoptive parents’ adoption petition.
- The court ordered custody transferred to the biological father, notwithstanding the child’s long-term placement with the prospective adoptive parents.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights and adoption are governed by statute; a court may not dispense with statutory requirements based solely on a generalized best-interests assessment.
- A biological parent’s rights may not be overridden in an adoption absent a valid release or a lawful termination supported by the requisite proof (commonly clear and convincing evidence).
- A putative father’s rights are not extinguished by proceedings that do not properly place his rights at issue; misidentification of the father can prevent lawful termination of the biological father’s rights.
- Abandonment requires proof meeting the statutory standard; delay or imperfect parenting history, without statutory abandonment shown, does not justify termination.
- Juvenile courts retain authority to consider motions that seek to vacate prior termination orders under appropriate procedural mechanisms.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that because the biological father was the child’s legal parent whose rights had not been released or lawfully terminated, and abandonment was not established under the governing statute, the adoption could not proceed over his objection and custody had to be transferred to him.


In re Interest of B.G.C., 496 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1993)