In the Interest of D.S., Minor Child
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1455
Filed November 17, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF D.S., Minor Child,
M.S., Father, Appellant,
D.S., Mother, Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam Sauer, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Cameron M. Sprecher of Sprecher Law Office, P.L.C., Mason City, for appellant father.
Barbara Jo Westphal, Belmond, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Becky Wilson of O’Mara Wilson Law, P.L.L.C., Mason City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. He asks for more time and contends the juvenile court erred by finding the State proved the grounds for termination. He also contends termination is not in the child’s best interests and would harm the child based on the close bond they share.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2020). After doing so, we conclude more time would not change the outcome of the proceedings, the statutory requirements for termination have been met, and termination is in the child’s best interests. We therefore affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The child was born in 2018. Because of the mother’s methamphetamine use and concerns about domestic violence between the parents, the child was removed from the home and placed in the custody of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in July 2021. The juvenile court adjudicated the child in need of assistance (CINA) in September.
The DHHS first placed the child in the father’s care1 with the understanding that the father would not supervise the mother’s visits with the child or allow the mother to live in the home. But in the days after the CINA adjudication, the DHHS learned of ongoing contact between the mother and the father, and attempts to contact each parent went unanswered. Concerned for the child’s safety, the DHHS decided to remove the child from the father’s care and place the child with a foster family. A worker arrived at the father’s home for removal and discovered the father
1Although the child was placed in the father’s care for a short time, the DHHS maintained custody throughout.
left the child with the maternal grandmother, who has a history of substance use. The worker reported that when the child was returned, the grandmother showed “physical indicators of possible substance use.”
The father made no progress toward reunification. The juvenile court gave a succinct summary of the father’s limited engagement with services:
Since November 2021, [the father] has only met with the [DHHS] when his attorney could also be present. [The father] is not currently participating in Family Centered Services. [The father]
completed four anger management classes and reported that he did not need to attend more classes. [The father] no showed for paternity testing on November 3 and December 8, 2021, and May 20, 2022. [The father] has not had an interaction with the child since the beginning of [2022] and has provided no reasonable explanation for not seeing the child in approximately seven months. [The father]
has made no attempts, whether in-person, over the phone, or video, to have contact with the child.
As a result, the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence supported terminating the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2022). The father appeals.2 II. Extending Time.
The father first asks for more time to reunify with the child. Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) allows the court to continue the child’s placement for six months if doing so will eliminate the need for the child’s removal. But before the court can grant more time, it must “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination that
2The court also terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother’s attorney appealed at the mother’s behest, but the supreme court dismissed the appeal when the mother failed to sign the notice of appeal.
the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).
The father argues for more time, claiming he “made significant progress” by finding employment and trying to maintain housing. He admits he did not participate in services because he distrusted the DHHS and disagreed with its determination that he was not a suitable placement for the child. But concerns about the father’s ability to care for the child arose when he violated the safety plan. And the father’s claim that “[t]here is no rule of law that states a parent must comply with services offered by the [DHHS] in order to regain custody” ignores that the juvenile court ordered his participation.3 Nothing in the record suggests custody can be returned to the father with more time. The progress claimed by the father is in areas that were not a concern when the case began. He made no progress with the concerns that led to the DHHS to remove the child from his care: allowing the mother and maternal grandmother contact with the child and failing to address concerns about domestic violence in his relationship with the mother.4 To add to those concerns, the father had not seen the child in the seven months before termination. On this record, we conclude that delaying termination will not bring a better result. See In re B.H.A.,
3 The juvenile courts orders include recommendations made by the DHHS. For example, the adjudicatory order prohibits the mother from interacting with the child “without prior approval of the [DHHS] and with the presence of a person approved by the [DHHS] to provide supervision.” It also requires the father to complete anger management therapy; arrange for paternity testing; keep all testing appointments, and cooperate with all testing procedures; and “attend all sessions, actively participate in, and demonstrate progress with, all services ordered herein.” 4 The child made statements to the foster family revealing she witnessed that
violence.
938 N.W.2d 227, 233 (Iowa 2020) (looking at a parent’s past performance as evidence of the future). We deny the father’s request for more time.
III. Statutory Grounds for Termination.
We next address the grounds for termination. We need only find sufficient evidence supporting one of the grounds cited by the juvenile court to affirm. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). The father challenges the evidence supporting termination under section 232.116(1)(h), arguing the State failed to show the child cannot be returned to his custody as provided in section 232.102. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4).5 He does not challenge termination under section 232.116(1)(e) (allowing termination when “clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so”). “Where a party has failed to present any substantive analysis or argument on an issue, the issue has been waived.” L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699, 703 (Iowa 2013).
Even so, sufficient evidence supports termination on either ground.
Because the father had no contact with the child during the seven months before termination and has made little to no effort to resume care of the child, we may
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the Interest of D.S., Minor Child (In the Interest of D.S., Minor Child) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.