135 N.W.2d 540
No. 51576.Supreme Court of Iowa.
June 8, 1965.
PARENT AND CHILD: Rights of parent and child — care — support
1 — affection. The right of a child to care, support and affection of his parents and the right of parents to have custody of their child and furnish him care, support and affection are inherent constitutionally protected liberties.
MINORS: Care — duty of State. State as parens patriae has the 2 duty to see that every child within its borders receives proper care.
MINORS: Neglected and dependency Act — purpose. Purpose of Act 3 providing for care of neglected and dependent children is to insure a child the care, custody and discipline that should be given by his parents. Section 232.2, Code of 1962.
MINORS: Neglect and dependency proceeding — welfare of child
4 primary concern. In neglect and dependency cases the primary concern is the child’s welfare, with due regard for the right of parent and child to live together.
MINORS: Rights of parents — due process — notice of hearing.
5 Rights and duties of parent and child cannot be decided without affording him due process of law, including notice of hearing and opportunity to be heard.
MINORS: Neglect and dependency hearing — nonresident father —
6 entitled to notice. Fact that the father of a child did not have a known residence in this state did not change his right to notice and reasonable time for appearance in a neglect and dependency hearing involving his minor child.
MINORS: Neglect and dependency hearing — notice to nonresident
7 father — 20 days — mail. Nonresident father whose address in California was
Page 1072
known was entitled to notice of at least 20 days by ordinary mail of the pendency of proceedings to have his minor child declared neglected and dependent.
MINORS: Neglect and dependency hearing — notice —
8 unconstitutional limitation. Statute providing for service of notice upon parents of a child in proceedings to have him declared neglected and dependent is unconstitutional to the extent it limits service of notice to parents whose residence in this state is known. Section 232.10, Code of 1962.
MINORS: Neglect and dependency proceeding — seven-day notice
9 — insufficient. Seven-day notice of a hearing on a petition to have a child declared neglected and dependent served on the resident custodian is not sufficient to meet the basic requirements of due process where the address of a nonresident parent is known.
MINORS: Neglect and dependency proceeding — issues as to
10 abandonment by nonresident father and commitment of child.
In proceedings to have a child declared neglected and dependent the nonresident father is entitled to be placed in the position he would have been had he been given proper notice and to be heard on the issue whether he has abandoned the child, and to ask the court to consider alternate commitments and conditions and restrictions that may be ordered. Sections 232.21 and 232.23, Code of 1962.
MINORS: Neglected and dependent — commitment invalid for
11 failure to notify nonresident father of hearing. In proceedings to have a child declared neglected and dependent where the child’s father was not notified of the proceedings, although his address was known, the decree placing the child with a home-finding association for adoption is void and is annulled.
Certiorari to Johnson District Court — CLAIR E. HAMILTON, Judge.
This is an original proceeding in certiorari, consolidated with an appeal. The case is decided in certiorari. — Writ sustained, proceedings below annulled as indicated.
John T. Nolan, of Iowa City, for appellant-plaintiff.
Daniel Boyle, Johnson County Attorney, for appellee-defendant.
Page 1073
THORNTON, J.
This is an original proceeding in certiorari consolidated with an appeal by our order.
Because of the disposition of the case in certiorari it is unnecessary to consider the appeal.
Plaintiff, Gerald Lavern Hammond, is the father of Larry Hammond, now four years old. Plaintiff’s former wife, Larry’s mother, left plaintiff, obtained a divorce, is now remarried and lives in Georgia. Plaintiff, in February 1963 shortly after his wife left him, left the child, Larry, in the care of a lady in Waterloo and went to California. In March of 1963 the child’s paternal grandmother took the child from the baby sitter in Waterloo and brought him to her home in rural Iowa City. May 18, 1964, an Aid to Dependent Children social worker filed a petition to have Larry declared a dependent and neglected child. Pursuant to this petition and section 232.14, Code of Iowa, 1962, the trial court found an emergency existed and entered an order for the temporary custody of Larry pending hearing.
On May 25, 1964, a hearing was held and in a decree entered June 22, 1964, the trial court found Larry to be a dependent and neglected child, his mother deserted him, that his paternal grandmother was not a fit or proper person to have custody of him, and ordered him taken from the custody of the grandmother and committed to the American Home Finding Association, a private nonsectarian child-placing agency at Ottumwa, with full right and power under the law to investigate and place said child for adoption.
The effect of the trial court’s order is to constitute the child-placing agency the guardian of the person of Larry, section 232.22, Code of Iowa, 1962, and allow such agency to consent to his adoption, section 600.3, Code of Iowa, 1962, without notice to his parents or either of them, section 600.4, Code of Iowa, 1962.
The only notice of the hearing served was that on the paternal grandmother. Such notice was directed by the court pursuant to the following sections, Code of Iowa, 1962:
“232.7 Time and place of hearing — notice. Upon the filing of the petition, the court or judge shall fix a time for the hearing
Page 1074
and a place within the district convenient to the parties, and cause notice to issue as hereinafter provided.”
“232.8 Notice. Said notice shall apprise all parties entitled to notice of the filing of said petition, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, and shall require the custodian of said child to appear with said child at said time and place. A copy of the petition shall be attached to said notice.”
“232.9 Manner of service. The court or judge may, in all cases, specify the particular manner in which said notice shall be served.”
“232.10 Service of notice. Said notice shall be served on the custodian of said child or on the person with whom such child is living, and on all other persons entitled to notice, at least five days before the day of hearing. No further service shall be required than on the parent when the parent is the custodian or guardian of said child or children. If the said custodian is not the parent or guardian, then additional service shall be made in the following order:
“1. On the parents if their residence in this state is known.
“2. On the guardian if his residence in this state is known.
“3. On some relative if his residence in this state is known.”
In the above as originally enacted, service on parents was not limited to those whose residence was known in the state. Chapter 11, section 4, Laws of the Thirtieth General Assembly; section 254-a16, Supplemental Supplement, 1915. Such change was made by House File 84, section 356, Laws of the Fortieth General Assembly, Extra Session, and appeared in its present form in the Code of Iowa, 1924.
The return to the writ states that additional service was not made on the parents for the reason the father was living in California, the mother in Georgia, neither had seen the child since April of 1963, and that neither of them had a residence in the state within the meaning and contemplation of section 232.10, Code of Iowa, 1962.
The testimony of the social worker shows the social worker knew plaintiff was in California and knew his address, and that the child’s mother was in Georgia and knew her address.
Plaintiff learned of the decree of June 22 and on August 20,
Page 1075
1964, filed an application wherein he prayed the decree be stayed, the court reconsider the decree and award custody of Larry to him. He therein urged the decree was void as to him because of failure to serve him with notice. The trial court refused to hear the application on the theory the court had lost jurisdiction.
On September 16, 1964, we granted certiorari to test the validity of the June 22, 1964, decree.
Plaintiff contends failure to serve him with notice denied him due process of law contrary to Amendment 14, United States Constitution, and section 9, Article I, of the Iowa Constitution. Defendant’s position is, because of the nature of the proceedings below, and the showing made at the hearing bearing on abandonment by plaintiff, the notice served fulfilled due process requirements.
[1-4] The right of a child to the care, support and affection of his parents, and the right of parents to have custody of their child and furnish him care, support and affection are inherent constitutionally protected liberties. Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, 573, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468. However, the state as parens patriæ has the duty to see that every child within its borders receives proper care. The purpose of chapter 232, Code of Iowa, 1962, is to carry out such duty — “to insure a child the care, custody and discipline that should be given by its parents.” State ex rel. Wiley v. Richards, 253 Iowa 679, 680, 113 N.W.2d 285, 286. In considering this type of case the primary concern is the welfare of the child, with due regard for the right of parent and child to live together. State ex rel. Gering v. Bird, 250 Iowa 730, 735, 737, 96 N.W.2d 100. [5-7] Such delicate rights and duties cannot be decided against a parent without affording him due process of law. The effect of the proceedings may be, and was in this case, to deprive him of all parenthood implies. He was entitled to notice. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L. Ed.2d 62 (April 27, 1965); In re Adoption of Cheney, 244 Iowa 1180, 59 N.W.2d 685. Notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard appropriate to the nature of the case is the most rudimentary demand of due process of law. Armstrong v. Manzo,Page 1076
380 U.S. 545, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1190, 1191, 14 L. Ed.2d 62 (April 27, 1965); Franklin v. Bonner, 201 Iowa 516, 519-521, 207 N.W. 778; and Pitzenberger v. Schnack, 215 Iowa 466, 245 N.W. 713. This is not changed because the father here did not have a known residence in this state. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865. In Mullane it was held nonresidents interested in a common trust fund, whose whereabouts are known, were entitled to notice by ordinary mail. 70 S. Ct. at page 659. Nothing less was due plaintiff here, and such notice should allow reasonable time for appearance — at least twenty days when the known person to be served is in California.
[8] Section 232.10, Code of Iowa, 1962, is unconstitutional to the extent it limits service of notice to parents whose residence in this state is known. [9] Seven-day notice of the pending hearing served on the resident custodian, here the grandmother, is not sufficient to meet the basic requirement of due process in the case of a nonresident parent whose whereabouts is known. It is not reasonably calculated to reach the parent and afford him an opportunity to be heard. Mullane v. Central Hanover BankTrust Co., supra, page 660 of 70 S. Ct. The case of a parent whose whereabouts are unknown and cannot with due diligence be ascertained is not before us, but see Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., supra, page 659 of 70 S. Ct. [10] Nor do we consider the evidence of abandonment produced at the hearing such as to place plaintiff in a position of not being entitled to notice, or constitute the notice served sufficient. This is one of the issues on which he is entitled to be heard. He is entitled to be heard on all issues properly in the case, and ask for the court to consider alternate commitments provided in section 232.21, Code of Iowa, 1962, and conditions and restrictions the court may order under section 232.23, Code of Iowa, 1962. [11] Plaintiff here is entitled now to be placed in the position he would have been entitled if he had been given proper notice. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 14 L. Ed.2d 62. This means the order and decree placing the child
Page 1077
with the American Home Finding Association is void and it is hereby annulled. The child, Larry, is to be returned to the custody of the social worker pursuant to the trial court’s order an emergency existed and providing for his temporary custody pending hearing. Hearing in the trial court insofar as this plaintiff is concerned shall be set on notice to plaintiff’s counsel of record but not sooner than twenty days after the issuance of the procedendo, unless otherwise agreed. Rule 316, Rules of Civil Procedure. — Writ sustained, proceedings below annulled as indicated.
All JUSTICES concur.