In the Interest of M.C., Minor Child, R.R.L.C., Father.
This text of In the Interest of M.C., Minor Child, R.R.L.C., Father. (In the Interest of M.C., Minor Child, R.R.L.C., Father.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1178 Filed October 14, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF M.C., Minor Child,
R.R.L.C., Father. Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Monty W. Franklin,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in
2008. AFFIRMED.
Stephen P. Dowil of Booth Law Firm, Osceola, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, and Michelle Rivera, County Attorney, for appellee State.
Carol A. Clark, Lamoni, for appellee Mother.
Michael A. Beal, Grimes, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ. 2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in
2008. He contends (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination,
(2) termination was not in the child’s best interests, and (3) the district court
should have declined to terminate his rights based on the bond he shared with
the child.
I. The district court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to
several statutory grounds. On our de novo review, we conclude termination was
warranted pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2015), which requires
proof of several elements including proof that the child could not be returned to
the parent’s custody. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999)
(stating we may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to support any of
the grounds cited by the district court).
The Department of Human Services became involved with the family after
the father consumed methamphetamine and threatened to excise bad thoughts
from his head, using a knife. The child was at home during the incident. He was
removed from the home following the incident.
At the time of the termination hearing, the father was in jail awaiting trial
on two charges of first-degree murder in an unrelated case. He was not in a
position to care for child at the time of the termination hearing or in the imminent
future.
II. Termination must be in the child’s best interests. In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 37-38 (Iowa 2010). There is no question it was. The child expressed
fear of his father and regressed in his behaviors at the mere mention of 3
reunification. While a behavioral health therapist who treated the father opined
he was ready to see the child, the converse was not true. The father severely
compromised the child’s safety by wielding a knife while high on
methamphetamine, continuing to use drugs following the child’s removal, and
failing to participate in services to address his addiction and mental health.
Termination of his parental rights was the best option for the child.
III. The father also contends the district court should have declined to
terminate his parental rights based on the parent-child bond. Any bond between
father and child was based on fear. The child’s therapist testified to the trauma
he saw in the child and even the father’s therapist stood by an earlier statement
admonishing the department to exercise caution in allowing contact between
parent and child.
We affirm the district court’s termination of the father’s parental rights to
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of M.C., Minor Child, R.R.L.C., Father., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-mc-minor-child-rrlc-father-iowactapp-2015.