In re Interest of B.G.C.
Iowa Supreme Court
496 N.W.2d 239 (1993)
- Written by Brittany Frankel, JD
Facts
Cara (plaintiff) had a child, B.G.C., and Cara decided to give B.G.C. up for adoption. Cara named Scott as B.G.C.’s father, and Cara and Scott both signed waivers of notice of the termination hearing. Following a hearing, the court terminated Cara and Scott’s parental rights. Cara later filed a motion to set aside the termination, asserting that B.G.C.’s father was, in fact, Daniel (plaintiff) and not Scott. Daniel was aware of Cara’s pregnancy, but he did not seek to assert his parental rights. In addition, Daniel did not have a good track record as a parent to his other children. The juvenile court denied Cara’s motion. R.D. (defendant) and J.D. (defendant) filed a petition to adopt B.G.C. In the adoption case, the district court determined that Daniel was the father and had not relinquished his parental rights. Accordingly, the district court denied R.D. and J.D.’s adoption petition. The court of appeals also reversed and remanded the juvenile court’s decision terminating Cara’s parental rights. R.D. and J.D. then moved to terminate Daniel’s parental rights to allow the adoption to go through. The district court denied R.D. and J.D.’s petition, because the ground of abandonment had not been established. R.D. and J.D. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Larson, J.)
Dissent (Snell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.