IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-2093 Filed September 18, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.P., Minor Child,
M.C., Mother, Petitioner-Appellee,
A.C., Father, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Steven J.
Andreasen, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights in a private
termination action. AFFIRMED.
Grant M. Rodgers of Higgins Law Firm, P.L.L.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant.
Benjamin D. Bergmann and Nathan Sandbothe of Parrish Kruidenier,
L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellee.
Penny Reimer of Reimer Mediation & Law, Cumming, attorney for minor
child.
Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ. 2
GREER, Presiding Judge.
The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to A.C.P., born in
February 2015, in a private termination action. Although the father materially
contributed to the well-being of both the mother and child during the mother’s
pregnancy, he has not maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact
with A.C.P. since the father’s incarceration, which began within a couple months
of the child’s birth. In the father’s absence, A.C.P. has maintained a close and
loving relationship with the mother’s new partner, whom the child refers to as
“Dad.” Based on the lack of a relationship between the father and the child and a
consensus of learned parties that reintroduction of the child to the father would
produce significant emotional distress to the child, we find it is not in the best
interests of the child for the father to maintain his parental rights. After reviewing
the facts and proceedings de novo, we affirm the decision of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The mother and father married in April 2014. The mother gave birth to
A.C.P. the following February after a high-risk pregnancy. While the father was
involved and provided financial support for the family both during the mother’s
pregnancy and immediately following the child’s birth, that support ended less than
two months later when the father was arrested.
The father was convicted of federal drug crimes—a result of running a drug
enterprise from the parents’ joint apartment. The mother reported that the father
regularly threatened individuals with violence as part of the enterprise. He was
sentenced to a term of 200 months with a mandatory minimum term of 120 months;
with an expected release date in November of 2028. Following his release, he is 3
expected to be deported to his home country of Mexico. Because the mother’s
knowledge of and involvement in the drug enterprise, she was also arrested. The
federal court sentenced her to one year and one day of federal prison time, of
which she served “about eight months.” She has since completed a term of
supervised release without incident.
After incarceration, the father failed to contribute funds to the care of the
child, although he earned prison wages for some of the time.1 According to both
parties, the father sent one gift, a hat, to the child early in his incarceration, but has
not sent gifts or cards since that time. The father maintained he sent “many” letters
to the child, but the mother denied receiving any written communication from the
father in prison and the father admitted that he never received a reply to his letters.
He produced no copies of the letters. The district court found that the mother was
more credible on the issue of whether letters were sent to the child.
During his approximately eight years of incarceration before the termination
trial, the father estimated that he spoke to the child at most eight times for five or
ten minutes a time. The father testified that several of these alleged calls
happened without the mother’s knowledge while the child was at his godmother’s
home, who acted as a babysitter for the child on several occasions. Yet, as of the
March 2023 termination trial, by the father’s own admission, he had not spoken to
his child in the last “couple years.” Throughout this same period of time, the father
1The father is currently in a maximum-security facility that prohibits prison employment. He previously resided in a minimum-security facility and was employed in the kitchen. 4
maintained communication and a relationship with his girlfriend, his siblings, his
mother, and his godmother.
At trial, the mother admitted she “stopped” the calls from the father when he
became more interested in the mother’s new partner than communicating with the
child. To explain her actions, the mother testified the father would call to inquire
about the status of her new relationship, seemingly apathetic to the status of his
child. In short order, the inquiries into the mother’s new relationship escalated to
threatening statements, texts, and calls. The threats culminated in an assault,
when a relative or acquaintance of the father approached the mother’s partner and
hit him in the face. The assaulter stated that the father sent him. The father denied
that he orchestrated the assault and argued he called the perpetrator after the
assault to demand they stay away from the mother, her partner, and their family.
Prior to the assault, the mother claimed she did not prohibit the father from
communicating with the child, but did make it clear that if the threats or inquiries
into her relationship continued, the calls would have to stop. Still, regardless of
restrictions, the father did not heed them or resume calls to his child.
II. Discussion.
We review chapter 600A termination proceedings de novo. In re G.A., 826
N.W.2d 125, 127 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012). We defer to the trial court’s findings of fact,
although we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); In re M.M.S.,
502 N.W.2d 4, 5 (Iowa 1993). “[O]ur primary concern in termination proceedings
is the best interests of the child.” G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 127.
In a private termination proceeding under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2020),
termination of parental rights involves a two-step process. In re B.H.A., 938 5
N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). The mother, as the party seeking termination, has
the burden to first prove by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the
grounds for termination under section 600A.8. Id. “Once the court has found a
statutory ground for termination under a chapter 600A termination, the court must
further determine whether the termination is in the best interest of the child.” In re
A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687, 690 (Iowa 2010).
Abandonment is one of the eleven enumerated grounds for termination of
parental rights. Iowa Code § 600A.8. If the child is at least six months old at the
time of the termination hearing, a parent has abandoned their child a unless the
parent has maintained “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the
child as demonstrated by contribution toward support of the child of a reasonable
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-2093 Filed September 18, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.P., Minor Child,
M.C., Mother, Petitioner-Appellee,
A.C., Father, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Steven J.
Andreasen, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights in a private
termination action. AFFIRMED.
Grant M. Rodgers of Higgins Law Firm, P.L.L.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant.
Benjamin D. Bergmann and Nathan Sandbothe of Parrish Kruidenier,
L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellee.
Penny Reimer of Reimer Mediation & Law, Cumming, attorney for minor
child.
Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ. 2
GREER, Presiding Judge.
The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to A.C.P., born in
February 2015, in a private termination action. Although the father materially
contributed to the well-being of both the mother and child during the mother’s
pregnancy, he has not maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact
with A.C.P. since the father’s incarceration, which began within a couple months
of the child’s birth. In the father’s absence, A.C.P. has maintained a close and
loving relationship with the mother’s new partner, whom the child refers to as
“Dad.” Based on the lack of a relationship between the father and the child and a
consensus of learned parties that reintroduction of the child to the father would
produce significant emotional distress to the child, we find it is not in the best
interests of the child for the father to maintain his parental rights. After reviewing
the facts and proceedings de novo, we affirm the decision of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The mother and father married in April 2014. The mother gave birth to
A.C.P. the following February after a high-risk pregnancy. While the father was
involved and provided financial support for the family both during the mother’s
pregnancy and immediately following the child’s birth, that support ended less than
two months later when the father was arrested.
The father was convicted of federal drug crimes—a result of running a drug
enterprise from the parents’ joint apartment. The mother reported that the father
regularly threatened individuals with violence as part of the enterprise. He was
sentenced to a term of 200 months with a mandatory minimum term of 120 months;
with an expected release date in November of 2028. Following his release, he is 3
expected to be deported to his home country of Mexico. Because the mother’s
knowledge of and involvement in the drug enterprise, she was also arrested. The
federal court sentenced her to one year and one day of federal prison time, of
which she served “about eight months.” She has since completed a term of
supervised release without incident.
After incarceration, the father failed to contribute funds to the care of the
child, although he earned prison wages for some of the time.1 According to both
parties, the father sent one gift, a hat, to the child early in his incarceration, but has
not sent gifts or cards since that time. The father maintained he sent “many” letters
to the child, but the mother denied receiving any written communication from the
father in prison and the father admitted that he never received a reply to his letters.
He produced no copies of the letters. The district court found that the mother was
more credible on the issue of whether letters were sent to the child.
During his approximately eight years of incarceration before the termination
trial, the father estimated that he spoke to the child at most eight times for five or
ten minutes a time. The father testified that several of these alleged calls
happened without the mother’s knowledge while the child was at his godmother’s
home, who acted as a babysitter for the child on several occasions. Yet, as of the
March 2023 termination trial, by the father’s own admission, he had not spoken to
his child in the last “couple years.” Throughout this same period of time, the father
1The father is currently in a maximum-security facility that prohibits prison employment. He previously resided in a minimum-security facility and was employed in the kitchen. 4
maintained communication and a relationship with his girlfriend, his siblings, his
mother, and his godmother.
At trial, the mother admitted she “stopped” the calls from the father when he
became more interested in the mother’s new partner than communicating with the
child. To explain her actions, the mother testified the father would call to inquire
about the status of her new relationship, seemingly apathetic to the status of his
child. In short order, the inquiries into the mother’s new relationship escalated to
threatening statements, texts, and calls. The threats culminated in an assault,
when a relative or acquaintance of the father approached the mother’s partner and
hit him in the face. The assaulter stated that the father sent him. The father denied
that he orchestrated the assault and argued he called the perpetrator after the
assault to demand they stay away from the mother, her partner, and their family.
Prior to the assault, the mother claimed she did not prohibit the father from
communicating with the child, but did make it clear that if the threats or inquiries
into her relationship continued, the calls would have to stop. Still, regardless of
restrictions, the father did not heed them or resume calls to his child.
II. Discussion.
We review chapter 600A termination proceedings de novo. In re G.A., 826
N.W.2d 125, 127 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012). We defer to the trial court’s findings of fact,
although we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); In re M.M.S.,
502 N.W.2d 4, 5 (Iowa 1993). “[O]ur primary concern in termination proceedings
is the best interests of the child.” G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 127.
In a private termination proceeding under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2020),
termination of parental rights involves a two-step process. In re B.H.A., 938 5
N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). The mother, as the party seeking termination, has
the burden to first prove by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the
grounds for termination under section 600A.8. Id. “Once the court has found a
statutory ground for termination under a chapter 600A termination, the court must
further determine whether the termination is in the best interest of the child.” In re
A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687, 690 (Iowa 2010).
Abandonment is one of the eleven enumerated grounds for termination of
parental rights. Iowa Code § 600A.8. If the child is at least six months old at the
time of the termination hearing, a parent has abandoned their child a unless the
parent has maintained “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the
child as demonstrated by contribution toward support of the child of a reasonable
amount, according to the parent’s means.” Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b). “Under
section 600A.8(3)(b), the threshold element of ‘substantial and continuous or
repeated contact’ is economic contributions.” In re K.W., No. 14-2115, 2015 WL
6508910, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2015). The parent must also maintain
“[r]egular communication with the child or with the person having the care or
custody of the child, when physically and financially unable to visit the child or
when prevented from visiting the child by the person having lawful custody of the
child.” Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b)(2). Incarceration is not an adequate justification
for the lack of a relationship with the child. M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d at 8.
Here, the mother must also prove by clear and convincing evidence that
termination is in the best interests of the child. E.g., B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232.
Section 600A.1 sheds light on “best interest,” including for the purposes of private
termination proceedings: 6
The best interest of a child requires that each biological parent affirmatively assume the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. In determining whether a parent has affirmatively assumed the duties of a parent, the court shall consider, but is not limited to consideration of, the fulfillment of financial obligations, demonstration of continued interest in the child, demonstration of a genuine effort to maintain communication with the child, and demonstration of the establishment and maintenance of a place of importance in the child’s life.
Iowa Code § 600A.1(2). We also borrow “from the statutory best-interest
framework outlined in Iowa Code chapter 232.” B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232.
On appeal, the father contests both the district court’s conclusions that he
abandoned the child and that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best
interests. We consider each of his arguments in turn.
A. Grounds for Termination.
The father challenges the district court’s finding of abandonment under
section 600A.8(3)(b), asserting his support of the mother during her pregnancy and
of the family immediately following the child’s birth “should not be overlooked.”
While the record evidence indicates the father was hands on and a loving father at
the very beginning of the child’s life, it was short-lived. Since his arrest, he has
provided no financial contribution and very little communication in the
approximately eight years between his incarceration and the time of the
termination trial. Those early months of affirmatively assuming the duties of a
parent do not overcome the years of inattention and noninvolvement that followed.
It is also worth noting that while the father failed to maintain regular communication
with the child, he regularly communicated with his siblings, mother, godmother,
and girlfriend from prison. While he claimed he wrote “many” letters to the child,
the district court specifically found credible the mother’s testimony “that she 7
received only one letter or gift from [the father] for the child.” We have no reason
to disregard this credibility finding. While we are not bound by them, we ordinarily
defer to the district court’s credibility findings given the court’s “unique opportunity
to observe witnesses firsthand.” See State v. Boone, 989 N.W.2d 645, 651–52
(Iowa 2023).
Given this history, the father, even by his own admission, has not
maintained substantial and continuous contact with the child based upon his failure
to maintain any regular communication with the child and by his failure to contribute
to the support of the child when he could have provided assistance. See Iowa
Code § 600A.8(3)(b)(2). For the reasons detailed above, we find that the father
abandoned his child pursuant to section 600A.8(3)(b).
B. Best Interests of the Child
As the petitioner, the mother must prove that termination of parental rights
is in the best interests of her child. Because of his life choices, there is a lack of
any relationship between the father and the child. The father’s behavior of
threatening the mother and her partner does not bode well for a healthy family
atmosphere for the child. And, the father will not be released for several more
years and, when he is, he will likely be deported so the child would still lack the
benefit of a healthy relationship with the father for some time.
In reaching this conclusion, we rely on testimony from the child’s caretakers,
who know the child best and who all agreed that the child only knows the mother’s
partner as “Dad.” Both the mother and the child’s guardian ad litem asserted that
the reintroduction of relationship between the child and the father would require
therapy for the child to address the inevitable emotional effects of reintroduction. 8
The child has no relationship with the father and the father admitted that if he were
to talk to the child “all at once that I am his father, [the child] is going to be scared.”
Thus, in our best-interests analysis, we consider many factors including “the child’s
safety,” “the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of
the child,” “the child’s emotional and psychological health,” and “the closeness of
the parent–child bond.” See B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232. In doing so, we find it is
in the best interests of the child to terminate the parental rights of the father as
reintroduction is not in the best interests of the child.
III. Conclusion.
Because the mother proved the father abandoned the child pursuant to
section 600A.8(3)(b) and termination of the father’s rights is in the child’s best
interests, we affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.