IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0545
Filed June 11, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF D.W.,
Minor Child,
J.W., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Nathan W. Tucker, Davenport, and Martha Cox, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Julian Wyre, Greenville, Illinois, pro se appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Mike Wolf, County Attorney, and Cheryl Newport, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Victoria Noel, Maquoketa, for mother.
Edward Cross, Clinton, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ. Tabor,
J., takes no part.
2
MCDONALD, J.
Julian appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his child, D.W.,
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (f), and (i) (2013). On
appeal, he contends the juvenile court erred in determining sufficient grounds
existed to terminate his parental rights. He contends the juvenile court should
have entered an order deferring termination for an additional six years to allow
him to reunite with the child upon his release from prison in 2020. We affirm the
order terminating parental rights.
The child first came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services in 2010 due to the mother’s substance abuse and inability to supervise
her five children. The child was adjudicated in need of assistance in April 2011.
The family received services for a number of years, but the mother continued to
use drugs and was unable to care for the children, who were removed from her
custody. D.W. was placed with her grandmother. The legal father of D.W. was
and is unable to care for the child because he is incarcerated. Julian, the
biological father of D.W., was and is unable to care for D.W. because he is
incarcerated and will not be discharged until 2020.
The matter came before the court on the State’s petition to terminate
parental rights on March 18, 2014. The mother, the legal father, and the
biological father were served with notice of the hearing. The mother failed to
appear. Neither father was present at the hearing. All had counsel present at
the hearing. The State introduced evidence supporting termination without
objection from Julian’s counsel. Julian’s counsel did not cross-examine any
3
witness. Further, Julian’s counsel did not assert any resistance at the time of the
hearing. On March 19, 2014, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the
parental rights of the mother, the legal father, and Julian. Only Julian appeals.
Julian has not preserved error for our review:
Despite receiving notice of the termination proceedings, the father
did not appear at the hearing. The father did not object to the
evidence presented, offer evidence, or raise any issue before the
district court. As a general rule, an issue not presented in the
juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Even
issues implicating constitutional rights must be presented to and
ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal.
Because the father did not present any evidence or lodge any
objection alerting the juvenile court to his complaints, he has not
preserved error for our review.
In re C.T., No. 14-0243, 2014 WL 1714958, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2014)
(quoting In re P.S., No. 11–0516, 2011 WL 2714169, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jul. 13,
2011)). Further, on appeal, Julian has not identified the statutory ground or
grounds he challenges. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 870 (Iowa 1996)
(stating that review is limited to those grounds actually challenged).
Even if Julian had preserved error, we conclude the appeal is without
merit. We review de novo proceedings terminating parental rights. See In re
H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 745 (Iowa 2011). We examine both the facts and law,
and we adjudicate anew those issues properly preserved and presented. See In
re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478, 480 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). We will uphold an order
terminating parental rights only if there is clear and convincing evidence of
grounds for termination. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no “serious or substantial
4
doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.”
Id.
After reviewing the record and applying the familiar three-step analysis,
see In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010), we conclude the order of the
juvenile court should be affirmed. There is clear and convincing evidence
supporting grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e),
(f), and (i). “When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the
sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm.” In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64
(Iowa Ct. App. 1999). There is no evidence that it would be in the child's best
interest within the meaning of section 232.116(2) to maintain a parent-child
relationship with Julian. Indeed, Julian does not identify any reason why it would
be in the child’s best interest to defer termination of his parental rights. Finally,
none of the permissive statutory exceptions set forth in section 232.116(3) should
serve to preclude termination of Julian’s parental rights. This child need not wait
for stability in her life until Julian is released from prison. See In re A.C., 415
N.W.2d 609, 614 (Iowa 1987).
AFFIRMED.