In the Interest of R.H., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-1861
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1861 Filed February 19, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF R.H., Minor Child,

D.H., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,

Judge.

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

AFFIRMED

Annette F. Martin, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Rebecca Williams, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

The father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to a child born

in 2023. Limiting our analysis to the claims properly presented in the father’s

petition on appeal, we affirm.

The child came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) after testing positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at

birth and shortly thereafter sustaining non-accidental injuries while in the care of

the mother or her paramour. The child was found to be in need of assistance and

placed in pre-adoptive foster care. And the father was later confirmed as the

biological father through testing.

The father did not meaningfully engage with services after paternity was

established and only attended three visits with the child in 2023, out of nineteen

offered. In 2024, he attended four out of forty visits. The total parenting time for

these fully-supervised visits added up to less than a day. The father also missed

more than half of his required drug-testing appointments. And he has not engaged

in significant mental-health treatment despite self-assessing that he has at least

one mental-health diagnosis.

In trial testimony, the father blamed his lack of engagement with services

and visits on sleep issues, not having his own apartment, his work hours, and

deaths in his extended family. He clarified that he was not asking for the child to

be returned to his custody immediately but instead for more time. And he agreed

that, as of trial, it was in the child’s best interest to remain with the foster parents.

The county attorney, HHS, and the child’s guardian ad litem all

recommended termination of parental rights. After trial, the juvenile court 3

terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e),

and (h) (2024).1 The mother’s rights were also terminated, but she does not

appeal. We review the father’s appellate claims de novo. See In re W.M., 957

N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).

The following sentence is the entirety of the substantive argument offered

by the petition on appeal: “In this case, the father remained at fully supervised visits

the entire case. There was never a conversation about moving father to move the

visits forward.” We are not sure exactly what this claim alleges. In any event,

while some boilerplate in the petition references section 232.116(1)(h), the father’s

rights were also terminated under (e), and we can summarily affirm on any

unchallenged ground. See In re L.H., 13 N.W.3d 627, 629 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024).

For this reason, and because the father conceded in trial testimony the child could

not be returned to his immediate custody, we summarily reject any challenge to

the sufficiency of the elements. See In re D.C., No. 24-1792, 2025 WL 401965,

at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2025) (summarily affirming under similar

circumstances). We also observe the father does not make any challenge relating

to reasonable efforts.

To the extent the father’s claim regarding visits could be construed as a

challenge that is properly before us, the failure to progress beyond fully supervised

visits weighs in favor of affirming—rather than reversing—the termination of

parental rights. See L.H., 13 N.W.3d at 629. And we discern no failure by HHS in

1 The juvenile court also made a finding that the father had abandoned the child

within the meaning of section 232.116(1)(b), but the court did not rely on that provision in its “conclusions of law.” We similarly observe those elements may have been met, but we do not rely on them to affirm. 4

relation to the father’s visits, given how many he missed over the course of two

calendar years.

At another point in the briefing, the father generally references that he

should have been granted “an additional six months to work towards reunification.”

He offers no substantive argument on this claim, and we deem it waived for failure

to cite legal authority or advance substantive argument. See Iowa Rs. App.

P. 6.201(1)(d), 6.1401–Form 5 (requiring “supporting legal authority” for all issues

raised); In re K.D., No. 21-0581, 2021 WL 3897419, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.

Sept. 1, 2021) (discussing these rules). But even if the issue had been briefed, we

would affirm: there is no reason to think the father would be able to resume custody

within six months, as he has not progressed beyond fully supervised visits, the

child has been out of his custody nearly the entirety of the child’s life, and he has

made little if any progress toward reunification. See In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315,

323–24 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) and discussing the

requirements for granting additional time).

AFFIRMED.