IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1865 Filed April 27, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF D.H., G.H., and S.H., Minor Children,
E.W., Mother, Petitioner-Appellee,
D.H., Father, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Timothy Jarman,
District Associate Judge.
The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children.
AFFIRMED.
Zachary S. Hindman of Mayne, Arneson, Hindeman, Hisey & Daane,
Sioux City, for appellant father.
Maxine M. Buckmeier, Sioux City, for appellee mother.
David L. Gill, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ. 2
PER CURIAM.
The district court terminated the father’s parental rights to these three
children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 600A.8(3)(b) (abandonment) and
600A.8(4) (failure to provide financial support without good cause) (2013). The
father appeals, contending his lack of contact with his children was not willful but
rather a result of his mental illness for which he cannot be held responsible. The
record does not support his claim and, therefore, we affirm.
A decision to terminate must be based on clear and convincing evidence.
Iowa Code § 600A.8. The parent petitioning for termination has the burden of
proof. See In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125, 129 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012). If the child is
six months of age or older,
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 . . . .
Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b).
“Parental responsibility demands ‘affirmative parenting to the extent it is
practicable and feasible under the circumstances.’” G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 130
(citation omitted).
We review termination proceedings under chapter 600A de novo. Id. at
127. We give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court, particularly with
regard to witness credibility, but we are not bound by them. Id. When 3
interpreting chapter 600A, the best interests of the child involved is “the
paramount consideration,” but we also give “due consideration” to the interests of
the child’s parents. Iowa Code § 600A.1.
Here, the mother proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father
has not seen his children since February 2012 when he went to prison for having
hired a person to shoot him in the leg in an attempt to gain sympathy from the
children’s mother. A therapist, Dr. Angela Stokes, was involved to facilitate
maintaining a relationship between the father and children. She attempted to set
up telephone calls with the father and children in January 2013 while he was
incarcerated. However, the father could not abide by the structure and rules
required, and his children were traumatized by the contact. He wrote one letter
to the children, to which the children reacted negatively. Dr. Stokes continued to
counsel the children after these failed contacts.
The father reported to Dr. Stokes he had multiple personality disorder,
bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other diagnoses. However, the prison
psychologist informed Dr. Stokes that the father had been diagnosed with
antisocial personality disorder.
The father was released from prison in November 2013. The parties
mediated appropriate steps to be taken before the father and children could
begin visits, which included the father’s continued participation in mental health
treatment. The father did attend a few sessions with Greg Nooney. Nooney
reported to Dr. Stokes that the father had depression, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Dr. Stokes reviewed
the father’s medical records and found he had also been diagnosed with 4
Munchausen’s syndrome in 2009. The father ceased attending therapy sessions
and was discharged by Nooney in October 2014.
The father returned to prison for probation violations in February 2015. In
May 2015, the mother filed an application to terminate the father’s parental rights
to his three children, asserting he had not seen his children since 2012, had not
maintained contact with the children, and had not financially supported the
children despite a court order that he pay $100 per month in child support. One
guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to represent the father and another to
represent the children. At the trial held in July and August 2015, the mother
presented evidence that she had not prevented the father from seeing the
children and that he had failed to contact them to the extent feasible under the
circumstances. She also established he paid nothing in child support in 2012,
2013, or 2015, and had paid $210 in 2014. The children’s GAL recommended
termination of the father’s rights.
The father claims that his lack of contact is due to mental illness. His
medical records indicate he has antisocial personality disorder and may have
Munchausen’s syndrome, which is manifested by a person lying to gain personal
benefit. However, there is no evidence that either antisocial personality disorder
or Munchausen prevent him from following through with attending mental health
treatment—which he testified he knew he had to do to attempt to reunify with his
children. He testified he did not follow through because, when released from
prison in 2013, he started seeing a woman and “went with the wrong crowd.” We
agree with the trial court’s assessment: 5
The expert testimony establishes that [the father]’s behavior has been detrimental to the children. [The father] has serious emotional and psychological problems which he has failed to address over the years. His very recent attempt to return to therapy is too little and too late. Additional attempts at contact between [the father] and the children will result in further serious harm to the children.
Another complaint of the father is that the mother was to blame for his
failure to exercise visitation. Even if we assume the mother may have some
blame, we decline to excuse the father on this basis. In November 2013, the
mother participated in mediation with the father relative to visitation and they
subsequently entered into a visitation stipulation. Unfortunately, the father failed
to live up to his counseling obligations under the agreement. Rather, the father’s
very limited contact with the children was hindered by his imprisonment, failure to
complete mental health counseling, and the fact—he admitted—that he was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1865 Filed April 27, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF D.H., G.H., and S.H., Minor Children,
E.W., Mother, Petitioner-Appellee,
D.H., Father, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Timothy Jarman,
District Associate Judge.
The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children.
AFFIRMED.
Zachary S. Hindman of Mayne, Arneson, Hindeman, Hisey & Daane,
Sioux City, for appellant father.
Maxine M. Buckmeier, Sioux City, for appellee mother.
David L. Gill, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ. 2
PER CURIAM.
The district court terminated the father’s parental rights to these three
children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 600A.8(3)(b) (abandonment) and
600A.8(4) (failure to provide financial support without good cause) (2013). The
father appeals, contending his lack of contact with his children was not willful but
rather a result of his mental illness for which he cannot be held responsible. The
record does not support his claim and, therefore, we affirm.
A decision to terminate must be based on clear and convincing evidence.
Iowa Code § 600A.8. The parent petitioning for termination has the burden of
proof. See In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125, 129 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012). If the child is
six months of age or older,
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 . . . .
Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b).
“Parental responsibility demands ‘affirmative parenting to the extent it is
practicable and feasible under the circumstances.’” G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 130
(citation omitted).
We review termination proceedings under chapter 600A de novo. Id. at
127. We give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court, particularly with
regard to witness credibility, but we are not bound by them. Id. When 3
interpreting chapter 600A, the best interests of the child involved is “the
paramount consideration,” but we also give “due consideration” to the interests of
the child’s parents. Iowa Code § 600A.1.
Here, the mother proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father
has not seen his children since February 2012 when he went to prison for having
hired a person to shoot him in the leg in an attempt to gain sympathy from the
children’s mother. A therapist, Dr. Angela Stokes, was involved to facilitate
maintaining a relationship between the father and children. She attempted to set
up telephone calls with the father and children in January 2013 while he was
incarcerated. However, the father could not abide by the structure and rules
required, and his children were traumatized by the contact. He wrote one letter
to the children, to which the children reacted negatively. Dr. Stokes continued to
counsel the children after these failed contacts.
The father reported to Dr. Stokes he had multiple personality disorder,
bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other diagnoses. However, the prison
psychologist informed Dr. Stokes that the father had been diagnosed with
antisocial personality disorder.
The father was released from prison in November 2013. The parties
mediated appropriate steps to be taken before the father and children could
begin visits, which included the father’s continued participation in mental health
treatment. The father did attend a few sessions with Greg Nooney. Nooney
reported to Dr. Stokes that the father had depression, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Dr. Stokes reviewed
the father’s medical records and found he had also been diagnosed with 4
Munchausen’s syndrome in 2009. The father ceased attending therapy sessions
and was discharged by Nooney in October 2014.
The father returned to prison for probation violations in February 2015. In
May 2015, the mother filed an application to terminate the father’s parental rights
to his three children, asserting he had not seen his children since 2012, had not
maintained contact with the children, and had not financially supported the
children despite a court order that he pay $100 per month in child support. One
guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to represent the father and another to
represent the children. At the trial held in July and August 2015, the mother
presented evidence that she had not prevented the father from seeing the
children and that he had failed to contact them to the extent feasible under the
circumstances. She also established he paid nothing in child support in 2012,
2013, or 2015, and had paid $210 in 2014. The children’s GAL recommended
termination of the father’s rights.
The father claims that his lack of contact is due to mental illness. His
medical records indicate he has antisocial personality disorder and may have
Munchausen’s syndrome, which is manifested by a person lying to gain personal
benefit. However, there is no evidence that either antisocial personality disorder
or Munchausen prevent him from following through with attending mental health
treatment—which he testified he knew he had to do to attempt to reunify with his
children. He testified he did not follow through because, when released from
prison in 2013, he started seeing a woman and “went with the wrong crowd.” We
agree with the trial court’s assessment: 5
The expert testimony establishes that [the father]’s behavior has been detrimental to the children. [The father] has serious emotional and psychological problems which he has failed to address over the years. His very recent attempt to return to therapy is too little and too late. Additional attempts at contact between [the father] and the children will result in further serious harm to the children.
Another complaint of the father is that the mother was to blame for his
failure to exercise visitation. Even if we assume the mother may have some
blame, we decline to excuse the father on this basis. In November 2013, the
mother participated in mediation with the father relative to visitation and they
subsequently entered into a visitation stipulation. Unfortunately, the father failed
to live up to his counseling obligations under the agreement. Rather, the father’s
very limited contact with the children was hindered by his imprisonment, failure to
complete mental health counseling, and the fact—he admitted—that he was
running around with the “wrong crowd.”
The father also asserts he could not pay child support because he was
incarcerated and had no income. He claims he was disabled. The father is a
truck driver and testified he was able to obtain funds to finance a truck but could
not find money to support his children. And he had some limited income while in
prison, none of which he provided to the children. The mother proved by clear
and convincing evidence that the father failed to engage in “affirmative parenting
to the extent it [was] practicable and feasible under the circumstances.” See
G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 130 (citation omitted). The voluntary failure of a parent to
maintain regular communication can justify termination. See In re T.B., No. 14-
1984, 2016 WL 530990, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2016) (“Since at least
October 2011, neither parent has visited T.B. or M.C., and even if we assume 6
that their interest in visitation was frustrated by the guardian’s actions, both the
father and mother fail to satisfy the alternative means of regular communication
with either the children or the children’s guardian.”); In re A.M.M., No. 13-0627,
2014 WL 3928877, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2014) (finding that a mother’s
lack of contact with child for sixteen months and lack of contact with custodial
father for twelve months prior to termination hearing was “only a marginal effort,
at best, to maintain regular communication” and justified termination, even
assuming that father had prevented her from having visitation with child). A
showing of abandonment does not require total desertion; feeble contacts can
also demonstrate abandonment. In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 8 (Iowa 1993).
The father also maintains that termination of his parental rights is not in
the children’s best interests. Our paramount consideration in termination
proceedings under chapter 600A is the best interests of the child. See Iowa
Code § 600A.1 (“In determining whether a parent has affirmatively assumed the
duties of a parent, the court shall consider, . . . 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.”). The
district court determined that maintaining the father/child relationship was
affirmatively harmful to the children, and the record supports that finding.
Because the mother has, by clear and convincing evidence, proved the
father abandoned his children in the statutory sense and that termination of his
parental rights is in the children’s best interests, we affirm.