IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-2079 Filed July 22, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF H.B., Minor Child,
J.B., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Raya D. Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Karl Wolle of the Juvenile Public Defender Office, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020). 2
CARR, Senior Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. He
challenges the grounds for termination and the finding that termination is in the
child’s best interests. The father also seeks to avoid termination because the child
is in the custody of a relative. We review his claims de novo. See In re A.S., 906
N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018).
The child, now eight years old, came to the attention of the Iowa Department
of Human Services (DHS) in December 2017 due to allegations that the mother
was under the influence of methamphetamine while caring for the child, which the
mother admitted. The same month, the father was arrested after a physical
altercation with his girlfriend in the home while the child was present. He pled
guilty to domestic abuse assault by strangulation as a result of that incident.
The juvenile court ordered the child removed from the home in January
2018 and adjudicated the child to be in need of assistance (CINA) the following
month based on the mother’s substance use and the father’s domestic violence.
In the year that followed, the mother continued to struggle with substance use and
the father made little progress. But because the child was in a relative placement
and both parents made some progress late in the case, the court delayed
permanency for six months. The mother continued to make headway, and the
juvenile court returned the child to her care in May 2019. In contrast, the father
largely ceased his engagement with services in March 2019. Eventually, the
child’s therapist recommended suspending the father’s visits due to his issues with
regulating his emotions, especially anger. 3
In August 2019, the State petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights.
The DHS, the mother, and the child’s attorney and guardian ad litem were in favor
of terminating the father’s parental rights. The father contested termination but
agreed that the child should remain in the mother’s care. Following a September
2019 hearing, the district court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019).
In order to terminate under section 232.116(1)(f), clear and convincing
evidence must show:
(1) The child is four years of age or older. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102.
The father challenges the evidence showing the child could not be returned to his
custody at the time of termination without exposing the child to harm amounting to
a new CINA adjudication. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4); In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting “at the present time” to mean “at the
time of the termination hearing”); In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 680 (Iowa Ct. App.
2016) (noting a child cannot be returned to a parent’s custody as provided in
section 232.102 if doing so would expose the child to any harm amounting to a
new CINA adjudication). The father argues the evidence falls short because he
had the means to care for and support the child at the time of the termination
hearing. 4
The evidence shows the same concerns that prevented the child from being
placed in the father’s care at the start of the CINA proceedings persisted at the
time of termination. As the juvenile court found, the father
failed to meaningfully address substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues. He has failed to maintain any contact with the child for the past five months and prior to that had not maintained consistent contact with the child throughout the duration of the [CINA] case. The father acknowledged the child should remain in the mother’s full custody and that his behaviors have emotionally harmed this child, to the point the child has come to the conclusion the father must be dead. He also acknowledged . . . his own stubbornness was the reason for his delay in engagement in services. The Court finds these unresolved issues prevent this child from being safely returned to the father’s custody.
On our de novo review, we concur in the juvenile court’s findings. Overwhelming
evidence shows the child could not be returned to the father’s care at the time of
the termination hearing.
We next consider whether termination is in the child’s best interests. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). In making
this determination, 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). The “defining elements” are the child’s safety and “need for a
permanent home.” In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted).
The father claims terminating his parental rights is contrary to the child’s
best interests because he has a relationship with the child. But the father’s last
visit with the child was in May 2019, and the visits ended because of the father’s
behavior and the negative effect it had on the child. And the record shows the 5
father is unwilling to do what is necessary for the child. As the juvenile court noted,
the father
essentially admitted that although he loved his son, he did not love him enough to participate in drug testing as requested by the DHS, did not love him enough to consistently attend [Family Safety, Risk, and Permanency] visits, did not love him enough to participate in child’s therapy, did not love him enough to complete his drug classes, and did not love him enough to participate in domestic violence services during the [CINA] case.
As a result of the father’s choices and behavior, the child considered the father to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-2079 Filed July 22, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF H.B., Minor Child,
J.B., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Raya D. Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Karl Wolle of the Juvenile Public Defender Office, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020). 2
CARR, Senior Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. He
challenges the grounds for termination and the finding that termination is in the
child’s best interests. The father also seeks to avoid termination because the child
is in the custody of a relative. We review his claims de novo. See In re A.S., 906
N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018).
The child, now eight years old, came to the attention of the Iowa Department
of Human Services (DHS) in December 2017 due to allegations that the mother
was under the influence of methamphetamine while caring for the child, which the
mother admitted. The same month, the father was arrested after a physical
altercation with his girlfriend in the home while the child was present. He pled
guilty to domestic abuse assault by strangulation as a result of that incident.
The juvenile court ordered the child removed from the home in January
2018 and adjudicated the child to be in need of assistance (CINA) the following
month based on the mother’s substance use and the father’s domestic violence.
In the year that followed, the mother continued to struggle with substance use and
the father made little progress. But because the child was in a relative placement
and both parents made some progress late in the case, the court delayed
permanency for six months. The mother continued to make headway, and the
juvenile court returned the child to her care in May 2019. In contrast, the father
largely ceased his engagement with services in March 2019. Eventually, the
child’s therapist recommended suspending the father’s visits due to his issues with
regulating his emotions, especially anger. 3
In August 2019, the State petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights.
The DHS, the mother, and the child’s attorney and guardian ad litem were in favor
of terminating the father’s parental rights. The father contested termination but
agreed that the child should remain in the mother’s care. Following a September
2019 hearing, the district court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019).
In order to terminate under section 232.116(1)(f), clear and convincing
evidence must show:
(1) The child is four years of age or older. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102.
The father challenges the evidence showing the child could not be returned to his
custody at the time of termination without exposing the child to harm amounting to
a new CINA adjudication. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4); In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting “at the present time” to mean “at the
time of the termination hearing”); In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 680 (Iowa Ct. App.
2016) (noting a child cannot be returned to a parent’s custody as provided in
section 232.102 if doing so would expose the child to any harm amounting to a
new CINA adjudication). The father argues the evidence falls short because he
had the means to care for and support the child at the time of the termination
hearing. 4
The evidence shows the same concerns that prevented the child from being
placed in the father’s care at the start of the CINA proceedings persisted at the
time of termination. As the juvenile court found, the father
failed to meaningfully address substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues. He has failed to maintain any contact with the child for the past five months and prior to that had not maintained consistent contact with the child throughout the duration of the [CINA] case. The father acknowledged the child should remain in the mother’s full custody and that his behaviors have emotionally harmed this child, to the point the child has come to the conclusion the father must be dead. He also acknowledged . . . his own stubbornness was the reason for his delay in engagement in services. The Court finds these unresolved issues prevent this child from being safely returned to the father’s custody.
On our de novo review, we concur in the juvenile court’s findings. Overwhelming
evidence shows the child could not be returned to the father’s care at the time of
the termination hearing.
We next consider whether termination is in the child’s best interests. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). In making
this determination, 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). The “defining elements” are the child’s safety and “need for a
permanent home.” In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted).
The father claims terminating his parental rights is contrary to the child’s
best interests because he has a relationship with the child. But the father’s last
visit with the child was in May 2019, and the visits ended because of the father’s
behavior and the negative effect it had on the child. And the record shows the 5
father is unwilling to do what is necessary for the child. As the juvenile court noted,
the father
essentially admitted that although he loved his son, he did not love him enough to participate in drug testing as requested by the DHS, did not love him enough to consistently attend [Family Safety, Risk, and Permanency] visits, did not love him enough to participate in child’s therapy, did not love him enough to complete his drug classes, and did not love him enough to participate in domestic violence services during the [CINA] case.
As a result of the father’s choices and behavior, the child considered the father to
be “dead.” Clear and convincing evidence shows termination of the father’s
parental rights is in the child’s best interests.
Finally, the father seeks to avoid termination of his parental rights under
section 232.116(3), which provides that the court need not terminate parental
rights in certain situations. One of these situations is when the child is in the legal
custody of a relative. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a). But the application of
section 232.116(3) is permissive rather than mandatory. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at
475. Whether the court applies the section to avoid terminating parental rights
based on any of the situations listed under section 232.116(3) will depend on the
facts of the case. See id. Our supreme court has stated that when termination is
appropriate under those facts, that decision “is not to be countermanded by the
ability and willingness of a family relative to take the child.” Id. (citation omitted).
Although the record shows the father would benefit from applying section
232.116(3)(a) to avoid termination, the child would not. We decline to apply the
section to preserve the parent-child relationship. See In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d
778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“At some point, the rights and needs of the child 6
rise above the rights and needs of the parents.”), overruled on other grounds by
P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 40.
Because clear and convincing evidence supports terminating the father’s
parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and termination is in the
child’s best interests, we affirm.