IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1215 Filed March 17, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF V.T. and J.T., Minor Children,
S.T., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P.
Strausser, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Shawn C. McCullough of Powell and McCullough, PLC, Coralville, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Christine Boyer (until withdrawal), Iowa City, and Jeannette Keller,
Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. 2
MULLINS, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. 1 The father argues
he should have been given an additional six months to work toward reunification,
termination of his parental rights is not in the best interests of the children, and
termination will be detrimental to the children given the closeness of the parent-
child bonds.
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2019), and the younger child was also adjudicated
pursuant to section 232.2(6)(o). The children were removed from the father’s
home in April 2019. The father has an extensive history of substance abuse,
including use of marijuana and methamphetamine. He also has a history of
mental-health issues. The father and mother also have a history of engaging in
domestic violence in front of the children. Physical altercations between the
parents have led to police intervention at times.
Over the course of this family’s involvement with the Iowa Department of
Human Services (DHS), the father has at times engaged in services. He has
participated in visitation, medication management, drug testing, substance-abuse
treatment, and mental-health treatment. However, the only service the father has
continued to engage with somewhat consistently over the course of proceedings
is visitation. The father also lost his job due to his use of methamphetamine.
1The father is the biological father of the older child and legal father of the younger child. The parental rights of the mother to both children and biological father of the younger child were also terminated. They do not appeal. 3
Petitions to terminate the father’s parental rights were filed in January 2020.
The first day of the termination hearing was held on March 4, 2020. Because of
court closures due to COVID-19, the second day of the termination hearing was
held on August 19, 2020. The termination petition as to the father’s rights to the
older child was dismissed May 22, 2020 following a motion from the State arguing
“not all of the grounds alleged in the petition were appropriate.” However, another
petition to terminate the father’s parental rights to the older child was filed June 16,
2020. The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l) (2020) as to the older child and section
232.116(e), (h), and (l) as to the younger child. The father appeals.
Our review is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). We
give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court, particularly regarding
witness credibility, but we are not bound by them. Id. Our primary concern is the
best interests of the children. Id. The State bears the burden to prove grounds for
termination by clear and convincing evidence, meaning “there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” Id.
The State contends the father failed to preserve error for his arguments
related to the best interests of the children and the parent-child bonds.2 When the
father testified, he was asked on direct examination if he believed immediate
placement with him was in the children’s best interests. He answered in the
affirmative. Other than that, no argument targeted the statutory framework or
2The State’s error-preservation contest was related to both arguments because it did not yet have access to the termination hearing transcripts. 4
purposes of the “best interests” standard. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re P.L.,
778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). The juvenile court made findings that it was in
the best interests of the children to terminate parental rights. The father also
testified that he was bonded to the children and felt they were bonded to him.
Again, those statements were very general and appear to relate more to the
father’s request for an additional six months to work toward reunification than the
permissive exception to termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The juvenile
court made no finding related to the parent-child bonds preventing termination or
any other permissive exception to termination.
“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.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). Our review of the
father’s testimony reveals that his statements, regarding both the children’s best
interests and the parent-child bonds, were passive in nature and did not create a
substantive record on either issue. But, the district court made findings related to
the best interests of the children. Accordingly, we assume without deciding that
the best-interests argument has been preserved, but we conclude the parent-child-
bonds argument has not.
We generally use a three-step process to examine appeals of terminations
of parental rights. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 40–41. The father has not challenged any
ground for termination; we may skip the first step. See id. at 40. Turning to the
second step, we consider whether termination of the father’s parental rights is in
the best interests of the children. Id. In determining whether termination is in the
best interests of children, courts “shall give primary consideration to the child[ren]’s 5
safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of
the child’[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of
the childl[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).
The father argues termination is not in the best interests of the children
because he “provided significant care for his children.” The children were initially
placed with the father when the children were adjudicated in need of assistance.
However, they were removed from his care in April 2019 because of exposure to
drug use on behalf of both parents and domestic violence. Since that time, the
father has failed to consistently engage in substance-abuse and mental-health
treatment and take his prescribed medications.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1215 Filed March 17, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF V.T. and J.T., Minor Children,
S.T., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P.
Strausser, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Shawn C. McCullough of Powell and McCullough, PLC, Coralville, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Christine Boyer (until withdrawal), Iowa City, and Jeannette Keller,
Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. 2
MULLINS, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. 1 The father argues
he should have been given an additional six months to work toward reunification,
termination of his parental rights is not in the best interests of the children, and
termination will be detrimental to the children given the closeness of the parent-
child bonds.
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2019), and the younger child was also adjudicated
pursuant to section 232.2(6)(o). The children were removed from the father’s
home in April 2019. The father has an extensive history of substance abuse,
including use of marijuana and methamphetamine. He also has a history of
mental-health issues. The father and mother also have a history of engaging in
domestic violence in front of the children. Physical altercations between the
parents have led to police intervention at times.
Over the course of this family’s involvement with the Iowa Department of
Human Services (DHS), the father has at times engaged in services. He has
participated in visitation, medication management, drug testing, substance-abuse
treatment, and mental-health treatment. However, the only service the father has
continued to engage with somewhat consistently over the course of proceedings
is visitation. The father also lost his job due to his use of methamphetamine.
1The father is the biological father of the older child and legal father of the younger child. The parental rights of the mother to both children and biological father of the younger child were also terminated. They do not appeal. 3
Petitions to terminate the father’s parental rights were filed in January 2020.
The first day of the termination hearing was held on March 4, 2020. Because of
court closures due to COVID-19, the second day of the termination hearing was
held on August 19, 2020. The termination petition as to the father’s rights to the
older child was dismissed May 22, 2020 following a motion from the State arguing
“not all of the grounds alleged in the petition were appropriate.” However, another
petition to terminate the father’s parental rights to the older child was filed June 16,
2020. The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l) (2020) as to the older child and section
232.116(e), (h), and (l) as to the younger child. The father appeals.
Our review is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). We
give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court, particularly regarding
witness credibility, but we are not bound by them. Id. Our primary concern is the
best interests of the children. Id. The State bears the burden to prove grounds for
termination by clear and convincing evidence, meaning “there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” Id.
The State contends the father failed to preserve error for his arguments
related to the best interests of the children and the parent-child bonds.2 When the
father testified, he was asked on direct examination if he believed immediate
placement with him was in the children’s best interests. He answered in the
affirmative. Other than that, no argument targeted the statutory framework or
2The State’s error-preservation contest was related to both arguments because it did not yet have access to the termination hearing transcripts. 4
purposes of the “best interests” standard. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re P.L.,
778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). The juvenile court made findings that it was in
the best interests of the children to terminate parental rights. The father also
testified that he was bonded to the children and felt they were bonded to him.
Again, those statements were very general and appear to relate more to the
father’s request for an additional six months to work toward reunification than the
permissive exception to termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The juvenile
court made no finding related to the parent-child bonds preventing termination or
any other permissive exception to termination.
“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.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). Our review of the
father’s testimony reveals that his statements, regarding both the children’s best
interests and the parent-child bonds, were passive in nature and did not create a
substantive record on either issue. But, the district court made findings related to
the best interests of the children. Accordingly, we assume without deciding that
the best-interests argument has been preserved, but we conclude the parent-child-
bonds argument has not.
We generally use a three-step process to examine appeals of terminations
of parental rights. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 40–41. The father has not challenged any
ground for termination; we may skip the first step. See id. at 40. Turning to the
second step, we consider whether termination of the father’s parental rights is in
the best interests of the children. Id. In determining whether termination is in the
best interests of children, courts “shall give primary consideration to the child[ren]’s 5
safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of
the child’[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of
the childl[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).
The father argues termination is not in the best interests of the children
because he “provided significant care for his children.” The children were initially
placed with the father when the children were adjudicated in need of assistance.
However, they were removed from his care in April 2019 because of exposure to
drug use on behalf of both parents and domestic violence. Since that time, the
father has failed to consistently engage in substance-abuse and mental-health
treatment and take his prescribed medications. At both days of trial, the father had
recently relapsed and used methamphetamine. In August, the father testified he
had been clean for one month, but he admitted to marijuana use during that time.
The father has been involved in a number of physical altercations, one
resulting in him being stabbed seven times approximately one month before the
second day of the termination trial. During the first day of trial, the father lived in a
home infested with insects. By the time of the second day of trial, the father had
been evicted from his prior residence and kicked out of one shelter. There were
consistent reports that the father was unable to maintain appropriate supervision
of both children during in-person visits. The older child exhibited troubling behavior
following visitation with the father, including becoming violent with another child.
Our review of the record reveals clear and convincing evidence supports that
termination of the father’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children.
The third step in our review of termination cases is to review permissive
exceptions to termination described in Iowa Code section 232.116(3). P.L., 778 6
N.W.2d at 41. The father’s argument that “there is clear and convincing evidence
that the termination would be detrimental to the child[ren] at the time due to the
closeness of the parent-child relationship[s]” was not preserved for our review. No
other permissive exception is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
We turn, finally, to the father’s request for an additional six months to work
toward reunification.
To grant a parent a reprieve from termination, a juvenile court must be able to “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.”
In re M.R., No. 13-1190, 2013 WL 5498097, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2013)
(quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)). As the juvenile court noted, the father was
essentially provided the additional six months he requested due to the time span
between the two days of trial. The record reveals that the circumstances of this
father at the time of the first day of trial were different than at the time of the second
hearing. At the March hearing, the father testified that he was employed, working
with his landlord on unsafe conditions in his residence, had developed a relapse
plan, and was actively practicing parenting skills. By August, the father had lost
his employment, been evicted, relapsed on methamphetamine and continued to
use marijuana, was not engaged in mental-health treatment, stopped taking
prescribed medications, and was unable to safely and appropriately supervise both
children during in-person visits.
These children have been removed from their father’s care for nearly two
years. The father asked for six months to work toward reunification in March 2020
and essentially had that time due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The father 7
failed to take advantage of that time. We will not make these children wait any
longer for permanency. Our review of the record reveals there was no “basis for
the determination the need for removal of the child[ren] from the child[ren]’s home
will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period” to support an
additional six months to work toward reunification. Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).
AFFIRMED.