In the Interest of C.C., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: March 29, 2023
• Docket: 22-1449
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1449 Filed March 29, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF C.C., Minor Child,

S.S., Mother, Petitioner-Appellee,

J.C., Father, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wright County, Hans Becker, District

Associate Judge.

A father appeals the private termination of his parental rights to twelve-year

old C.C. AFFIRMED.

Alesha M. Sigmeth Roberts of Sigmeth Roberts Law, PLC, Clarion, for

appellant.

Megan R. Rosenberg of Cady & Rosenberg Law Firm, P.L.C., Hampton, for

appellee.

Taylor Jay W. Nederhoff, Iowa Falls, attorney and guardian ad litem for

minor child.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

A father appeals the private termination of his parental rights to twelve-year-

old C.C., whom he had with a woman he never married. We affirm.

We review private termination proceedings de novo. See In re B.H.A., 938

N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). We are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings

of fact, but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of

witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g).

In this private termination proceeding, the mother must establish by clear

and convincing evidence the father has abandoned the child within the meaning of

Iowa Code section 600A.8(3) (2021). For our purposes here,

[A] parent is deemed to have abandoned the child unless the parent maintains 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, and as demonstrated by any of the following: (1) Visiting the child at least monthly when physically and financially able to do so and when not prevented from doing so by the person having lawful custody of the child. (2) Regular 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). A parent’s subjective intent unsupported by the

evidence manifesting that intent is immaterial and does not preclude a finding of

abandonment. See id. § 600A.8(3)(c).

The mother must also prove by clear and convincing evidence that

termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. B.H.A.,

938 N.W.2d at 232. “The best interest of the child subject to the proceedings of

this chapter shall be the paramount consideration in interpreting this chapter.” 3

Iowa Code § 600A.1(1). “The best interest of a child requires that each biological

parent affirmatively assume the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent.”

Id. § 600A.1(2). When determining whether a parent has affirmatively assumed

this duty, the court must consider, but is not limited to, a parent’s “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.” Id. “This court has also borrowed from the statutory best-interest

framework outlined in Iowa Code chapter 232.” B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232.

Consequently, we “give primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best

placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the

physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code

§ 232.116(2).

Of importance is the child’s emotional and psychological health, and the closeness of the parent–child bond. Finally, this court has said, “It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the [petitioner] has proved a ground for termination . . . by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.”

B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232 (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted).

On our de novo review, there is clear and convincing evidence of the trial

court’s finding that the father “spent a total of ten minutes with [C.C.] in the past

seven years, even though he was living out in the community between 2015 until

his incarceration in July 2021.” The father has been arrested more than a dozen

times during the child’s lifetime. He is currently incarcerated on drug-related and

burglary charges. 4

The father has not attempted to visit or maintain communication with C.C.

on a monthly basis over the past seven years. And even though he has been

incarcerated since July 2021, the first time he attempted to call C.C. from jail or

prison was in June 2022, between the first and second day of the termination-of-

parental-rights (TPR) trial. Nor has the father attempted to send the child a letter

or present in the past seven years, though he knows where the child, the mother,

and the maternal grandparents reside.1 The father admitted the only written

communication he has attempted to send to C.C. over the past five years were a

few Facebook messages sent in October 2020 and January 2021. As the trial

court found, “[T]he father spent more time testifying at the TPR trial than he spent

[in] total attempting to contact and maintain a relationship with [C.C.] over the past

seven years.”

Nor has the father provided any financial support since 2014. His claims of

inability to provide any support are belied by the fact that his prison wages have

been garnished to support another of his children—admittedly intermittently and

delinquent.

The child’s guardian ad litem (GAL) reported the child stated she had no

contact with her father in at least the past four years and did not wish him to

continue to be her father because they did not have any relationship whatsoever.

The GAL recommended termination of the father’s parental rights.

We agree with the district court’s assessment:

Although abandonment might not be in [the father]’s heart or his head, it is deeply entrenched in his actions. The court finds that [the

1 His claims that his efforts were stymied by the mother are not supported by the record. 5

father] abandoned [C.C.] by failing to maintain substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child and such lack of contact has been caused by [the father’s] own decisions and actions.

Because there is no relationship between the father and child and

considering the “best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth

of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the

child,” Iowa Code § 232.116(2), we find termination of the father’s parental rights

is in the child’s best interests. We affirm the termination of the father’s parental

rights.

AFFIRMED.