In the Interest of E.V., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: May 24, 2023
• Docket: 23-0589
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0589 Filed May 24, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF E.V., Minor Child,

L.V., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District

Associate Judge.

The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.

AFFIRMED.

Gabriel Brio Porter of Porter Law Firm of Iowa, Des Moines, for appellant

father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Nicole Garbis Nolan, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ. 2

GREER, Judge.

The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to E.V., born in

2016, under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (f) (2023). We review

termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311,

313 (Iowa 2022). “The burden is on the State to show by clear and convincing

evidence that the requirements for termination have been satisfied.” Id.

The father does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination, which

includes the juvenile court’s determination that he abandoned E.V. See Iowa Code

§§ 232.2(1) (“‘Abandonment of a child’ means the relinquishment or surrender,

without reference to any particular person, of the parental rights, duties, or

privileges inherent in the parent-child relationship. Proof of abandonment must

include both the intention to abandon and the acts by which the intention is

evidenced.”), .116(1)(b) (allowing the court to terminate parental rights for

abandonment). He focuses his challenge on whether termination of his parental

right is in E.V.’s best interests.

In considering the best interests of the child, we are required to use the

best-interests framework set out by our legislature. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 37

(Iowa 2010). As mandated, our “primary considerations are ‘the child’s safety,’

‘the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child,’

and ‘the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.’” Id.

(quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). While the father takes issue with the fact that,

as of the time of the March 2023 termination trial, the child was living with a foster

family that was not a long-term option, he was not in a position to take over the

child’s care. He had not seen the child in nearly a year and, before the child was 3

adjudicated in need of assistance, he had gone another year without seeing her.

The father absented himself from large portions of the young child’s life.

Additionally, the father had been out of contact with the Iowa Department of Health

and Human Services for nearly eight months; he admitted he was not participating

in substance-abuse or mental-health services, though he recognized that mental-

health therapy could be beneficial. He lived in a car with his fiancée, as he had

been doing for several months. He hoped to obtain another living arrangement in

the near future but did not yet have solid plans.

While it is unfortunate that E.V. still needed to make one more move—to

another foster family, whom she knew through spending weekends at their home—

the fact that she was not yet in the home of her permanent family does not

overcome the fact that the father is not able to take over her care. E.V. needs and

deserves permanency, and termination of the father’s parental rights will allow her

to achieve it. Termination is in her best interests. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793,

801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (“A child’s safety and the need for

a permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best

interests.”). We affirm the juvenile court.1

1 The father references Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) in his petition on appeal, which allows the court to forego termination when “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” The father bears the burden to convince us to apply this permissive factor. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 475–76 (Iowa 2018). And we cannot say the father has even tried to do so. But insofar as he means to rely on this permissive exception, we reiterate that the father went nearly one year without seeing the young child leading up to the termination trial. Additionally, he provided no testimony about his time with E.V. prior to that period. The permissive exception is not applicable here.