In the Interest of R.W., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 24-1536
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1536 Filed December 18, 2024

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

J.W., Father, Appellant,

L.E., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey,

Judge.

Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Ryan J. Mitchell of Orsborn, Mitchell & Goedken, P.C., Ottumwa, for

appellant father.

Sarah Wenke, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Nicole C. Steddom of Heslinga, Dixon & Hite, Oskaloosa, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Bower, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2024). 2

BOWER, Senior Judge.

Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to R.W.,

born in 2021. They claim the district court erred in concluding the child could not

safely be returned to their custody, termination is not in the child’s best interests,

and the parent-child bond should preclude termination. The mother also claims

the court should have placed the child in a guardianship with the maternal

grandmother in lieu of terminating her parental rights. Upon our review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

In June 2022, R.W. was admitted to Blank Children’s Hospital with a severe

skull fracture and brain bleed. She was ten months old. The father—who was

caring for the child at the time of the injuries—reported R.W. was playing in water,

slipped, fell, and hit her head. Medical providers determined R.W.’s injuries were

nonaccidental.1 There were also concerns about domestic violence between the

parents. The mother agreed to the child’s placement with the maternal

grandmother under a safety plan with the department of health and human

services (HHS). The father would not agree to the child’s placement with the

grandmother, so HHS requested an ex parte removal order.

Initially, the mother planned to reside in the maternal grandmother’s home

with the child, and she sought a no-contact order against the father. The mother

changed her mind a few days later, moved back into the family home with the

father, and requested the no-contact order be dropped. R.W. was adjudicated a

child in need of assistance and removed from the parents’ custody.

1 A subsequent child abuse assessment was founded relating to the father’s physical abuse of the child. 3

The parents were directed to participate in mental-health services. The

mother was already doing so. The father did not participate because “[h]e didn’t

think that he needed any mental-health services.” The father’s contact with the

child was professionally supervised, but he refused to follow the advice of the

visitation supervisors, maintaining “that they weren’t going to tell him how to

interact with his daughter.” The father “still didn’t believe that [HHS] needed to be

involved.”

The mother requested another no-contact order against the father in

November. HHS believed the mother was making progress to distance herself

from the father. The mother progressed to semi-supervised and overnight visits.

In May 2023, HHS recommended the child be returned to the mother.

Approximately six weeks later, the parents were arrested for violating the

no-contact order. HHS learned the mother had not been honest about her contact

with the father and he had been staying in the family home. HHS explained to the

mother “that continued contact with [the father]” and “providing [him] access” to the

child “would be a concern” preventing her reunification with the child because the

father was not cooperating in services. Despite this advice, the mother requested

the no-contact order be dropped, and the father moved back into the home. The

child was returned to the care of the maternal grandmother, where she has

remained since.

In spring 2024, HHS also became concerned about marijuana use by the

parents. The father completed a substance-use evaluation and stated he used

marijuana “a couple times a week.” But he refused to follow through with

recommended treatment. The mother initially denied substance use, but after 4

several tests returned positive results, she acknowledged using. Her evaluation

recommended enhanced outpatient treatment, which she began. The court

entered a permanency order in April, observing the mother “has been participating

in recommended services” but “continues to choose to be romantically involved

with [the father].” The court found, “[R.W.] is only two years old. [The father]’s lack

of participation in services, failure to acknowledge the abuse, and [the mother]’s

lack of protective capacity are legitimate safety concerns, and barriers to

reunification.”

By July, HHS reported there had been “little progress” toward reunification.

The father had moved from Ottumwa to live in Muscatine but “ended up in Des

Moines.” There, he was arrested for two separate charges and was incarcerated

in Polk County and subsequently transferred to the Muscatine County jail where

he remained at the time of the hearing. Meanwhile, the mother continued to

maintain she had ended her relationship with the father and asked him to leave the

home. However, HHS reported “there are concerns on if this happened as [the

father] was still claiming they were still in a relationship until he moved to Des

Moines.” HHS reported the mother’s “transparency and credibility” have been “a

concern throughout the life of this case.” The State petitioned for termination of

parental rights.

A termination trial took place in August. By then, the child had been out of

the parents’ custody for all but six weeks of the past two years. At trial, the mother

admitted the father was “verbally abusive” toward her and stated she had ended

the relationship in May. Since he had been in jail , she had not answered his calls.

She believed the father’s rights should be terminated. She further believed she 5

could keep the child safe and requested the child be returned to her custody. The

father testified he had been incarcerated since the first week of July but he could

“be released within a couple of weeks.” He stated he planned to “start” domestic

violence classes after he was released, acknowledging it was “still a requirement

that [he] need[ed] to do.” He agreed he “had troubles controlling [his] anger in the

past,” but he believed he had “conquered” this issue. He requested additional time

to work toward reunification and further opined, “I don’t think [R.W.] should have

ever been removed. There is lack of evidence that I—that me or [the mother] did

anything.”

HHS and the guardian ad litem recommended termination of parental rights.

The court entered an order terminating both parents’ rights pursuant to Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), and (i) (2024). The parents separately appeal.

II. Analysis

We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo, asking

whether (1) a statutory ground for termination is satisfied, (2) the child’s best

interests are served by termination, and (3) a statutory exception applies and

should be exercised to preclude termination. See In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313

(Iowa 2022); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(1)–(3). The parents’ appeals touch

peripherally on each of these steps.

Although neither directly challenges the grounds for termination by

subparagraph, both claim the court erred in concluding the child could not safely

be returned to their custody.2 See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4) (requiring the

2 The father also generally claims he “cooperated with all services.” 6

State to show by clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be returned

safely to the custody of either parent at the time of the termination hearing); see

also In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012) (noting when juvenile court relies

on more than one paragraph, we may affirm “on any ground supported by the

record”).

Relating to the father, aside from his incarceration, he took no responsibility

for his abuse to R.W., which precipitated HHS’s involvement with this family. See

In re H.H., No. 23-0146, 2023 WL 2909070, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2023)

(noting “[a] parent’s failure to address his or her role in the abuse may hurt the

parents’ chances of regaining custody and care of their children” (citation omitted)).

Moreover, he did not obtain treatment to address his issues. See id. (observing a

failure to take responsibility for wrongdoing may result in “failure to obtain

treatment for his or her problems” (citation omitted)).

Turning to the mother, we observe she made strides in the months

preceding the termination hearing. But the mother’s progress coincided with the

father’s incarceration. The guardian ad litem opined, “We’re not in a terribly

different position than we have been since this case started.” The HHS

caseworker opined, “I have concerns that if [the father] were to show back up at

her house when she’s trying to set boundaries in place, she would not want to deal

with that confrontation and allow things to kind of backslide to where they were

before.” Based on these and the other facts detailed above, we concur with the

court’s assessment the child could not be returned to the custody of either parent

at the time of the termination hearing. Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) was

satisfied. 7

Combining the second and third steps, the parents each claim termination

is not in the child’s best interests based on the bond they share with the child. The

father also claims “he can provide a safe, stable, and nurturing home for the child

and provide all necessities for the child.” When determining best interests, we give

primary weight 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). These factors all

weigh in favor of termination. Turning our analysis to the bond exception in section

232.116(3)(c), see In re L.L., No. 24-0431, 2024 WL 2045335, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App.

May 8, 2024) (noting a best-interests claim based on emotional bonds “is more

properly addressed under the third step”), we acknowledge the child shares a bond

with the parents—the mother more so than the father. However, to avoid

termination under section 232.116(3)(c), the “law requires clear and convincing

evidence that ‘termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the

closeness of the parent-child relationship.’” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa

2021) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). Here, the guardian ad litem opined

the child is “in a safe home with people that she loves and that love her and that

have been protective of her and demonstrate that kind of capacity and have

through the last two years, so I have no concerns about her future there.” The

guardian ad litem continued, “I do have concerns about her future if she were to

be placed back with either of her parents today.” Under these circumstances,

neither parent has established termination of their rights will be detrimental to the

child. 8

The mother also claims the court should have placed the child in a

guardianship rather than ordering termination, “[s]ince the child is placed with a

family member, it is likely that the child will continue to have a relationship with [the

mother].” To establish a guardianship in lieu of termination, the court must

determine by clear and convincing evidence that “termination of the parent-child

relationship would not be in the best interest of the child.” Iowa Code

§ 232.104(4)(a). And, “a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to

termination.” In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). A guardianship

does not provide the same level of stability and safety for a child as termination of

parental rights and adoption because a guardianship is not permanent. See In re

A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 478 (Iowa 2018).

Here, the court found R.W. “is a child that needs permanency, and neither

parent is in a position to provide [her] the permanency she needs and deserves.

[R.W.] is bonded with her current caregiver, [the maternal grandmother], who is

willing to adopt [her] if parental rights are terminated.” But “[a]n appropriate

determination to terminate a parent-child relationship is not to be countermanded

by the ability and willingness of a family relative to take the child.” In re C.K., 558

N.W.2d 170, 174 (Iowa 1997). The child’s best interests always remain the first

consideration. In re L.M.F., 490 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). As noted

above, it is in the child’s best interests to terminate parental rights. She is well-

integrated into her grandmother’s home, and her grandmother can meet her

needs. A guardianship status lacks the permanency R.W. needs and deserves.

See In re A.C., No. 23-0567, 2023 WL 3612382, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 24, 2023) 9

(“The impermanent nature of guardianships denies children the security and

stability that a permanent home provides.”).

Having addressed the issues raised on each parent’s appeals, we affirm the

termination of their parental rights.