IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1377 Filed July 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF T.G. and M.G., Minor Children,
SHAYLA L. MCCORMALLY, Custodian, Petitioner-Appellee,
J.W., Father, Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister,
Judge.
A father appeals the private termination of his parental rights over his two
daughters under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2023). AFFIRMED.
J.W., Odgen, self-represented appellant.
Shayla L. McCormally of McCormally & Cosgrove, P.L.L.C., Des Moines,
self-represented appellee.
Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024). 2
LANGHOLZ, Judge.
This case is not the first time a court has terminated the father’s parental
rights to two of his children. Shortly before entering a relationship with the mother
of his two daughters involved in this case, the father lost his parental rights to two
children with a different mother because he physically abused them. The father
and mother’s first daughter was born in June 2021 and suffered neglect from both
parents. A little over a year later, the mother fled to her parents’ home, where she
still lived when their second daughter was born. Since the mother left, the father
had no contact with the daughters. Indeed, he never met the second daughter.
After the mother voluntarily released her custody of the daughters, the new
custodian petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights. Because the father
did not make any meaningful efforts to visit or financially support his daughters
until termination proceedings began and he cannot safely parent his daughters,
the district court found that he abandoned his daughters and that terminating his
parental rights would best serve the girls. The father appeals.
But the father’s efforts at contact were too little. His newfound interest in
parenting the daughters comes too late. And termination is in the daughters’ best
interests. So we affirm the district court.
I.
In February 2020, the father had his parental rights terminated over two
minor children1 from a past relationship. There, it was proven the father abused
1 Three of the father’s minor children from a prior relationship were adjudicated in
need of assistance due to the father’s abuse, but one turned eighteen years old while the later termination proceedings were pending. 3
his children—striking them with belts, bamboo sticks, or fiberglass poles with metal
tips; depriving them of food and water for days as punishment; punching them so
hard they lost consciousness; and other cruel forms of discipline. The father
refused to obtain mental-health or substance-use evaluations and disavowed
counseling. He was ultimately declared “a high risk for continuing to behave in a
violent and dangerous manner in his role as a parent,” his parental rights were
terminated, and he was placed on the child abuse registry.
Three months later, the father began a relationship with the mother—the
father was 46 years old and the mother was 23 years old. The two quickly moved
in together and their first daughter was born in June 2021. The mother received
almost no prenatal care, nor did they take the daughter to the doctor after she was
born for routine checkups. It appears the only medical care she received was a
dental procedure when she was a few weeks old. And they never obtained a birth
certificate for her.
While the daughter was very young, she was kept in a Rubbermaid plastic
tub as a crib. At times, the mother would close the lid with the daughter inside and
place a basket of toys on top so she could not get out. The father knew of this and
did not intervene. And the father often left her to cry for hours on end. By fourteen
months, the daughter had learned never to cry, even when she needed help.
The mother and father’s relationship grew volatile, and they often fought in
front of the daughter. In early August 2022, while eight months pregnant with their
second daughter, the mother fled the relationship and returned to her parents’
home. The father knew where the mother and his daughter were staying—he 4
dropped off some of the mother’s items there the next week. Yet the father never
tried to see his daughter.
Their second daughter was born in September. The father did not attend
her birth. The younger daughter has lived with the mother’s parents since birth
and has never met the father.
The mother and father briefly reunited in Minnesota for one night in
November. But their encounter turned violent—the father hit and strangled the
mother—and a nearby hotel guest called the police. They returned to the mother’s
parents’ home late the next evening, and the father asked to take his daughters.
Because it was late, the girls were already asleep, and he did not have car seats,
the father was told to come back the next day. He did not return the next day, nor
did he ever again ask to see his daughters.
That evening was the only time the father ever asked to visit his daughters
from August 2022 until the termination petition was filed in March 2023. And the
father did not financially contribute toward his daughters’ care during these seven
months, despite having the means to do so.
After the Minnesota incident, the mother sought inpatient treatment. The
mother then left the state,2 leaving the maternal grandparents to care for the
daughters. She ultimately released her custody of the daughters to counsel for the
maternal grandparents, consenting to the termination of her parental rights. See
Iowa Code §§ 600A.4, 600A.2(1). While the maternal grandparents love the girls,
they are both retired and getting older, so they do not view themselves as viable
2 Although the father never tried to visit his daughters, he once drove down to
Florida to try to reconcile with the mother. 5
caregivers for the girls long term. The custodian thus wishes to facilitate the girls
being adopted by younger parents.
In March 2023, the custodian petitioned to terminate both the mother and
father’s parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2023). The petition alleged
the mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights, the father abandoned his
daughters, and termination is in the daughters’ best interests. The court appointed
a guardian ad litem, who recommended that termination would best serve the
daughters.
After a two-day trial, the district court terminated both the mother and
father’s parental rights. The court first accepted the mother’s consent to
termination and found it to be in the daughters’ best interests. Turning to the
fighting issue of the father’s abandonment, the court found the father failed to
maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with” his daughters. See
Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b). The court found it significant that the father “has shown
the willingness to spend time, energy, and money to travel to Florida and spend
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1377 Filed July 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF T.G. and M.G., Minor Children,
SHAYLA L. MCCORMALLY, Custodian, Petitioner-Appellee,
J.W., Father, Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister,
Judge.
A father appeals the private termination of his parental rights over his two
daughters under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2023). AFFIRMED.
J.W., Odgen, self-represented appellant.
Shayla L. McCormally of McCormally & Cosgrove, P.L.L.C., Des Moines,
self-represented appellee.
Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024). 2
LANGHOLZ, Judge.
This case is not the first time a court has terminated the father’s parental
rights to two of his children. Shortly before entering a relationship with the mother
of his two daughters involved in this case, the father lost his parental rights to two
children with a different mother because he physically abused them. The father
and mother’s first daughter was born in June 2021 and suffered neglect from both
parents. A little over a year later, the mother fled to her parents’ home, where she
still lived when their second daughter was born. Since the mother left, the father
had no contact with the daughters. Indeed, he never met the second daughter.
After the mother voluntarily released her custody of the daughters, the new
custodian petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights. Because the father
did not make any meaningful efforts to visit or financially support his daughters
until termination proceedings began and he cannot safely parent his daughters,
the district court found that he abandoned his daughters and that terminating his
parental rights would best serve the girls. The father appeals.
But the father’s efforts at contact were too little. His newfound interest in
parenting the daughters comes too late. And termination is in the daughters’ best
interests. So we affirm the district court.
I.
In February 2020, the father had his parental rights terminated over two
minor children1 from a past relationship. There, it was proven the father abused
1 Three of the father’s minor children from a prior relationship were adjudicated in
need of assistance due to the father’s abuse, but one turned eighteen years old while the later termination proceedings were pending. 3
his children—striking them with belts, bamboo sticks, or fiberglass poles with metal
tips; depriving them of food and water for days as punishment; punching them so
hard they lost consciousness; and other cruel forms of discipline. The father
refused to obtain mental-health or substance-use evaluations and disavowed
counseling. He was ultimately declared “a high risk for continuing to behave in a
violent and dangerous manner in his role as a parent,” his parental rights were
terminated, and he was placed on the child abuse registry.
Three months later, the father began a relationship with the mother—the
father was 46 years old and the mother was 23 years old. The two quickly moved
in together and their first daughter was born in June 2021. The mother received
almost no prenatal care, nor did they take the daughter to the doctor after she was
born for routine checkups. It appears the only medical care she received was a
dental procedure when she was a few weeks old. And they never obtained a birth
certificate for her.
While the daughter was very young, she was kept in a Rubbermaid plastic
tub as a crib. At times, the mother would close the lid with the daughter inside and
place a basket of toys on top so she could not get out. The father knew of this and
did not intervene. And the father often left her to cry for hours on end. By fourteen
months, the daughter had learned never to cry, even when she needed help.
The mother and father’s relationship grew volatile, and they often fought in
front of the daughter. In early August 2022, while eight months pregnant with their
second daughter, the mother fled the relationship and returned to her parents’
home. The father knew where the mother and his daughter were staying—he 4
dropped off some of the mother’s items there the next week. Yet the father never
tried to see his daughter.
Their second daughter was born in September. The father did not attend
her birth. The younger daughter has lived with the mother’s parents since birth
and has never met the father.
The mother and father briefly reunited in Minnesota for one night in
November. But their encounter turned violent—the father hit and strangled the
mother—and a nearby hotel guest called the police. They returned to the mother’s
parents’ home late the next evening, and the father asked to take his daughters.
Because it was late, the girls were already asleep, and he did not have car seats,
the father was told to come back the next day. He did not return the next day, nor
did he ever again ask to see his daughters.
That evening was the only time the father ever asked to visit his daughters
from August 2022 until the termination petition was filed in March 2023. And the
father did not financially contribute toward his daughters’ care during these seven
months, despite having the means to do so.
After the Minnesota incident, the mother sought inpatient treatment. The
mother then left the state,2 leaving the maternal grandparents to care for the
daughters. She ultimately released her custody of the daughters to counsel for the
maternal grandparents, consenting to the termination of her parental rights. See
Iowa Code §§ 600A.4, 600A.2(1). While the maternal grandparents love the girls,
they are both retired and getting older, so they do not view themselves as viable
2 Although the father never tried to visit his daughters, he once drove down to
Florida to try to reconcile with the mother. 5
caregivers for the girls long term. The custodian thus wishes to facilitate the girls
being adopted by younger parents.
In March 2023, the custodian petitioned to terminate both the mother and
father’s parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2023). The petition alleged
the mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights, the father abandoned his
daughters, and termination is in the daughters’ best interests. The court appointed
a guardian ad litem, who recommended that termination would best serve the
daughters.
After a two-day trial, the district court terminated both the mother and
father’s parental rights. The court first accepted the mother’s consent to
termination and found it to be in the daughters’ best interests. Turning to the
fighting issue of the father’s abandonment, the court found the father failed to
maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with” his daughters. See
Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b). The court found it significant that the father “has shown
the willingness to spend time, energy, and money to travel to Florida and spend
nearly a week pursuing [the mother] to reengage with him,” yet “has made virtually
no effort to try to reengage with his children.” The court also emphasized the
father’s wholesale failure to communicate with the maternal grandparents. These
failures, together with his lack of financial support, showed the father had
abandoned his daughters.
The court next held that the daughters were best served by termination.
Because the father refused to engage in services to improve his parenting, and his
testimony showed a lack of accountability for his past abuses, the girls were
unlikely to be safe in his care. Nor was the court confident that the father would 6
give the daughters the help they will need—particularly given his disavowal of
professional counseling or mental health services. Finally, the court gave
“considerable weight” to the guardian ad litem’s recommendation as to the girls’
best interests. And so, the court terminated the father’s parental rights over his
daughters, awarded temporary physical care to the maternal grandparents, and
extended counsel’s legal custody of the girls. The father appeals.
II.
On appeal, the father raises a smattering of grievances with the district court
proceedings and presents them as discrete issues for us to resolve. One
grievance we can dispose of quickly—he argues the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution entitled him to a jury trial. But he did not raise this issue
below, nor does he offer any authority to support his argument, so the issue is both
unpreserved and waived. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa
2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily
be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on
appeal.”); Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3) (“Failure to cite authority in support of
an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”).
His remaining grievances—whether witnesses were credible, whether
evidence was overlooked, and whether the guardian ad litem’s recommendation
should have been followed—are fairly understood as challenging whether clear
and convincing evidence supported the district court’s finding that he abandoned
his daughters and that termination is in the daughters’ best interests. So those are
the issues we consider. 7
Private actions to terminate parental rights are a two-step process. In re
B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). First, a petitioner must show “clear and
convincing” evidence that one or more grounds for termination exists. Iowa Code
§ 600A.8. Second, the petitioner must prove that termination is in the children’s
best interests. Id. § 600A.1. We review these issues de novo, though we give
weight to the district court’s fact-finding and credibility determinations. B.H.A., 938
N.W.2d at 232.
Starting with the first step, the district court relied on the statutory ground of
abandonment under section 600A.8(3). That section provides that for a child who
is at least six months old—like the daughters here—“a parent is deemed to have
abandoned the child unless the parent maintains substantial and continuous or
repeated contact with the child.” Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b). And the petitioner
can prove the lack of sufficient contact by showing the parent failed to make
“contribution toward support of the child of a reasonable amount, according to the
parent’s means” or failed to maintain direct contact by either: (1) visiting monthly;
(2) communicating regularly when unable to visit; or (3) “[o]penly living with” and
“holding himself or herself out to be the parent of the child” during a six-month
period in the year before the termination hearing. Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b)(1)–
(3); see also id. § 600A.2(20) (defining abandonment generally).
The father does not seriously dispute his lack of contact between August
2022 and March 2023 termination petition. Indeed, the father succinctly described
his parenting efforts at trial—“I have done nothing.” Instead, he contends his
absence is excusable because the maternal grandparents prevented him from
visiting and regularly communicating with his daughters. See Iowa Code 8
§ 600A.8(3)(b)(1) (excusing failure to visit monthly when “prevented from doing so
by the person having lawful custody of the child”); In re R.G., No. 21-1744, 2022
WL 2160691, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. June 15, 2022). But we find no evidence the
father was barred from seeing, speaking with, or supporting the girls. The only
time the father asked to see his daughters—the evening in November 2022—he
was not outright refused but told to return the next morning when the girls awoke.
The father chose to never return. And he only initiated contact (through counsel)
after these termination proceedings began. So there is no support for his argument
that he was barred from seeing his daughters or that efforts to contact them would
have been futile. We thus find that there is clear and convincing evidence he
abandoned both daughters.
Next considering the daughters’ best interests, section 600A.1 directs us to
decide “whether a parent has affirmatively assumed the duties of a parent.” Iowa
Code § 600A.1(2); see also B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232. In making this decision,
we consider—among other factors—“the fulfillment of financial obligations,
demonstration of continued interest in the child, demonstration of a genuine effort
to maintain communication with the child, and demonstration of the establishment
and maintenance of a place of importance in the child’s life.” Iowa Code
§ 600A.1(2). “[B]orrow[ing] from the statutory best-interest framework outlined in
Iowa Code chapter 232,” we “give primary consideration to the child’s safety” and
the best placement to encourage their long-term nurturing and growth. B.H.A.,
938 N.W.2d at 232 (cleaned up). We likewise consider “the child’s emotional and
psychological health and the closeness of the parent–child bond.” Id. (cleaned
up). And because the children’s wellbeing is our polestar, we will not delay security 9
and permanency “by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be
able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa
2010).
On appeal, the father argues that the guardian ad litem was biased, the
evidence suggesting he harmed his older daughter is flawed, and he has evolved
since the 2020 termination action. We find none of these arguments convincing.
First, the record shows the guardian ad litem was experienced and neutral. While
the father disputes that he is a capable parent, that disagreement is not enough to
render the guardian ad litem intolerably partial.
Second, the district court’s safety concerns are well founded. When the
older daughter left her father’s care, she had no birth certificate and had never
been to the doctor for a checkup. She was routinely sealed in a ventless storage
tub. And she was ignored so often while crying she learned not to cry at all, even
when she needed help—she was fourteen months old. This evidence, taken
together with the father’s prior findings of physically abusing his other children,
shows the girls should not be returned to his care.
Relatedly, the father has not shown he has undergone the necessary work
to improve his parenting. While we do not doubt the sincerity of the father’s efforts
to improve himself, we are not convinced that attending a “personal development
retreat” and engaging in self-study are enough to dispel the substantial risk of harm
identified in the 2020 termination action. The father continues to refuse to obtain
mental health and substance-use evaluations—testifying he does not believe in
“professional help”—or otherwise participate in parenting services from the
department of health and human services. What’s more, his self-study topics are 10
largely unrelated to parenting, and he only offered vague descriptions of how those
materials improved his skills as a father. Given the degree of physical abuse in
his prior termination case, his neglect of the older daughter, and his lack of
accountability during trial on both these fronts, we agree with the district court that
the daughters are best served by terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.