Court Opinion

ID: 9677433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:52:15.241178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:55.931634
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent.
*877The mother of a minor child seeks to terminate a father’s parental rights.
The majority has affirmed the termination because the father has not paid child support. There is nothing in this file to reflect after termination there is an intent the child be adopted. The termination relieves the father from his obligation to pay child support in the future. I cannot subscribe to his being relieved of his child support obligation unless someone is to step in his position.
I find support for my position in In re D.W.K, 365 N.W.2d 32, 35 (Iowa 1985); Anthony v. Anthony, 204 N.W.2d 829, 834 (Iowa 1973); State ex rel. Evers v. Berridge, 447 N.W.2d 562, 563 (Iowa App. 1989). These cases are distinguishable only in so much as they involve fathers voluntarily attempting to relieve themselves of child support obligations through termination. However, their premise is that even if statutory grounds for termination are met, we must look to a child’s best interest. Clearly, terminating the child’s right to receive support from her father is not in her best interest. Furthermore, there being no evidence the mother can support the child on her own, part of the responsibility for the child’s support may fall on the state.