In the Interest of L.V.-G., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-1246
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-1246 Filed December 17, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF L.V.-G., Minor Child,

A.C., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son.

AFFIRMED.

Shireen L. Carter of Shireen Carter Law Office, PLC, Norwalk, for appellant

father.

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

General, for appellee State.

Sarah Dewein of Cunningham & Kelso PLLC, Urbandale, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and

Langholz, JJ. 2

LANGHOLZ, Judge.

A one-year-old son was removed from his parents’ custody after the mother

drove her car—with the son in it—while intoxicated.1 The father was in jail awaiting

a probation-violation hearing for violating a no-contact order protecting the mother.

Over the next year, the father was mostly in—or escaped from—custody,

repeatedly violated court orders, struggled with substance use, declined to accept

responsibility for his prior misconduct, minimized his history of domestic violence,

and failed to make meaningful use of the services offered to him. Seeing no

prospect that the father would improve in the foreseeable future, the juvenile court

thus terminated his parental rights.2

On appeal, he argues that termination was not in the best interest of the

son. But on our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court. Given the

father’s failure to address his substance-use issues, his lack of progress with the

many services offered to him, his unwillingness to comply with court orders, and

his history of domestic abuse, terminating the father’s parental rights is in the best

interest of the son. We thus affirm the juvenile court.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings

The son first came to the attention of the Department of Health and Human

Services (“HHS”) in April 2024—just two days after his first birthday—when his

mother was arrested for child endangerment after driving intoxicated with the son

1 We avoid using the parties’ names to respect their privacy because this opinion—

unlike the juvenile court’s order—is public. Compare Iowa Code § 232.147(2) (2025), with id. §§ 602.4301(2), 602.5110; see also Iowa Ct. R. 21.25. 2 The State petitioned to terminate only the father’s parental rights. At the time of

the termination hearing, the mother’s permanency goal remained reunification with an extra six months to work toward that goal. 3

in the car. Less than two weeks later, the son was removed from the mother’s

custody and placed with relatives. At the time the son was removed, the father

was in jail awaiting a hearing for allegedly violating his probation—on domestic-

abuse-assault and false-imprisonment offenses against the mother—by violating

a no-contact order protecting her. The son was adjudicated in need of assistance

in June 2024.

Beyond the abuse that led to criminal charges, the mother told HHS that the

father began abusing her while she was pregnant with the son and continued to

abuse her after the son was born—including in the son’s presence. The father

also has unresolved substance-use issues. Following the August 2024 disposition

hearing, the father tested positive for cocaine. He denied using cocaine and

blamed the positive drug test on sipping another man’s drink. But he later admitted

to his therapist that he relapsed with cocaine.

Then in October, he was back in jail for violating probation. The violation

included “possession of a synthetic intoxicant,” which the father again denied

despite showing behavioral signs of use. While in jail for his probation violation,

he was unable to attend his court-ordered therapy and domestic violence

treatment. And the court ultimately found him in contempt and ordered him to

serve 60 days in jail.

While placed in the Fort Des Moines community-based corrections

residential facility in early 2025, the father also had problems. He threatened a

staff member saying that he would “knock him out.” He then escaped from the

facility, leading to a warrant for his arrest. And while on the run, he phoned the

mother and bragged to her about how he could use illegal drugs again. After being 4

charged with escape from the facility, the father turned himself in and pleaded

guilty. The court sentenced him to 70 days in jail for the escape to run concurrent

with the jail time for the probation violations and discharged him from probation

unsuccessfully.

Then in late April 2025, the juvenile court held a contested permanency

hearing for the son. The father testified at the hearing, but the court found that “he

took no responsibility for domestic violence or his assaultive behavior.” Neither

did he “take responsibility for his conduct at the Fort.” And the court found that the

father was a risk to the mother’s well-being and her substance-use recovery. So

the court changed the father’s permanency goal to termination and ordered the

State to file a petition to terminate his parental rights.

After a June 2025 termination hearing, the juvenile court terminated the

father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2025). The court

reasoned that the father “has not completed substance treatment and is not in

consistent therapy” and that he has failed to complete “IDAP classes to address

domestic violence.” It also found that the father “continues to show a lack of

accountability,” and his “conduct has caused him to be in and out of jail throughout

this case”—conduct that has “had a negative impact on [the son].” The court thus

concluded that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the son’s best

interest. The father appeals.

II. The Son’s Best Interest

Terminating parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 232 follows a three-

step process. In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022). First, the State must

prove a statutory ground for termination. Id. Second, the State must show 5

termination is in the best interest of the child. Id. And finally, the parent bears the

burden to show whether a discretionary exception applies that should preclude

termination. Id. We review a termination decision de novo, giving “respectful

consideration” to the juvenile court's factual findings, especially when based on

credibility determinations. In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).

The father does not dispute the grounds for termination or argue for an

applicable exception. He challenges only the second step—whether it is in the

son’s best interest to terminate his parental rights. He argues that it is unfair to

terminate his rights while the mother was given extra time to work toward

reunification and that termination would harm the son because of the loss of the

father’s financial support and his bond with the son.

But the best interest of the child—not the fairness to the parent—is the

“paramount concern in a termination proceeding.” L.B., 970 N.W.2d at 313.

Whether the mother should have been given extra time is not before us—only

whether termination of the father’s parental rights is in the son’s best interest. We

consider both the child’s long-term and immediate best interest. See In re C.K.,

558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). And we must 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); see also In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 224

(Iowa 2016). Yet the “potential loss of child support” is not “a component of the

section 223.116(2) best interest test.” In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 749–50

(Iowa 2011). 6

On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that termination is

in the son’s best interest. For starters, the father has been in and out of jail or

community-based-correctional facilities for most of the son’s life. His own

actions—abusing the mother, using illegal substances, and violating probation and

no-contact orders—that have caused his absence in the son’s life. Yet he

continuously fails to take accountability for his actions and lack of progress.

Indeed, when asked at the hearing why he was not dedicated to doing what was

necessary to ensure custody of his son, he said “probation.”

The district court found that the father “doesn’t believe he needs substance

abuse treatment,” that he “does not take full accountability for his probation

violations,” and that he “minimizes his assaultive and domestic abusive behavior.”

We agree that this is problematic because “[i]t is vital” for a parent to “recognize

abuse occurred” so that “meaningful change can occur” and the parent can

“meet[]the child’s needs.” In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 421 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994)

(cleaned up).

So the father still poses a safety risk to the son and mother. The mother

reported that he physically abused her while she was pregnant and in the presence

of the son once he was born. And he violated the resulting no-contact order by

following the mother to her house. Any minimal progress is overshadowed by his

history of abuse. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000) (reasoning

that while the parent “took positive steps to turn her life around in the months prior

to the termination hearing, these steps do not eliminate her past”).

The father has also failed to recognize the dangers of his substance use

and that of the mother. After he escaped the Fort Des Moines facility, he bragged 7

to the mother about how he could use illegal substances again. And while he was

in jail, he called the mother more than 100 times. In one of these calls, he

encouraged the mother—who also has substance-use and alcohol problems—to

drink alcohol despite these proceedings starting because of her conduct driving

while intoxicated.

What’s more, the father has shown little, if any, progress throughout these

proceedings. HHS has offered the father many services to correct his behavior

and give him an opportunity to be a parent to his son. But he has not taken

advantage of them to remedy the situation and be a parent to his son.

At bottom, the father has been largely absent from the son’s life because of

his own actions. So considering the son’s safety, overall well-being, and the

father’s inability to take responsibility for his actions or show improvement after

numerous opportunities and services were provided, termination is in the best

interest of the son. We thus affirm the juvenile court’s termination order.