IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1667
Filed December 10, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF D.M.,
Minor Child,
D.M., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan F. Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Joan M. Black, Iowa City, for appellant father.
Eric Nelson, Cedar Rapids, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, Jerry Vander Sanden, County Attorney, and William Croghan, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Julie Gunderson Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, for
minor child.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Eisenhauer, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013).
2
EISENHAUER, S.J.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. He
contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence. He also contends termination is not in the child’s best
interests and would be detrimental to the child due to the closeness of the
parent-child relationship. We review these claims de novo. See In re A.M., 843
N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014).
The child was born in March 2004. The Iowa Department of Human
Services filed a petition to adjudicate the child in need of assistance (CINA) in
March 2012 due to the mother’s heroin use, and the child was removed from the
mother’s care in May of 2012. At the time, the father was incarcerated in
Louisiana on a charge of possession of firearms as a felon. However, he
maintained regular contact with the child by telephone, sent the child gifts, and
provided the mother with financial support. He was released on parole in June
2013 and will remain on parole until January 2016.
Following hearings held in 2013 and 2014, the juvenile court terminated
the father’s parental rights to the child pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(b) and (f) (2013).1 We find clear and convincing evidence supports
termination under section 232.116(1)(f) (allowing termination where the child is at
least four years of age, was adjudicated CINA and removed from parent’s
custody twelve months, and cannot be returned to the parent’s custody).
Although the father argues the child can be returned to his care because he has
1
The mother’s parental rights to the child were also terminated, but the termination of
her rights is not before us in this appeal.
3
been released from prison, is employed, and has suitable housing for the child,
we echo the concerns stated by the juvenile court in its termination order: the
father has a “significant criminal history,” which includes a conviction for murder
for which he was incarcerated from 1985 until 2002; he was incarcerated “for a
significant part” of the child’s life; the State of Louisiana’s refusal to approve the
child’s placement with the father because of his criminal history; and there is a
founded report of child sexual abuse against the child’s half-sibling with the father
as the perpetrator. Because the child could not be safely returned to the father’s
care at the time of the termination hearing, the grounds for termination under
section 232.116(1)(f) have been met.
We also find termination is in the child’s best interests. In making this
determination, we give “primary consideration 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). The child is in a foster home with a half sibling and is doing well.
The father’s criminal history has limited his contact with the child and prevents
the child from being returned to his care. The situation is unlikely to change in
the near future. While the father may one day be able to safely parent the child,
we will not ask the child to continuously wait for the father to assume the
parenting role. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). “It is well-
settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has
proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) 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).
4
Finally, we find the exception to termination found in section 232.116(3)(c)
does not apply. While the child views the father in a positive light and enjoys the
father’s attention, a finding termination would be detrimental to the child is not
supported by the record. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c) (providing an exception
to termination where “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the
termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship”). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.