IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0266
Filed April 6, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF J.W.,
Minor child,
B.W., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin A. Parker,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Zachary C. Priebe of Jeff Carter Law Offices, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Dawn M. Bowman of Bowman Law Office, Pleasantville, for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in
2015. He contends (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited
by the district court and (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests.
I. Grounds for Termination
The district court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(g), (h), and (i) (2015). We may affirm a termination
decision if we find clear and convincing evidence to support any of the grounds
cited by the court. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
Termination is warranted under section 232.116(h). This ground requires
proof that the child is three years of age or younger, has been adjudicated in
need of assistance, and has been removed for at least six of the previous twelve
months or six consecutive months. There also must be “clear and convincing
evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody” of the child’s parent.
Our de novo review of the record reveals the following facts. The father’s
parental rights to two other children were terminated based on his physical abuse
of both of them.1 Based on those terminations, the father consented to the
temporary removal of this child, who was subsequently adjudicated in need of
assistance.2
1
The father contends this evidence is irrelevant, amounts to “improper character
evidence,” and is inadmissible because it relates to “prior terminations from . . . different
families.” We need not resolve this issue because the argument implicates an element
of section 232.116(1)(g) rather than section (h). Specifically, section (g) requires proof
of the termination of parental rights “with respect to another child who is a member of the
same family.” Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g).
2
The father essentially conceded the relevancy of the prior termination evidence when
he consented to the temporary removal of this child based on his acts of physical abuse
against the other children.
3
The department of human services offered the father professionally-
supervised visits with the child. The father participated in visits, which took place
once a week for an hour and a half. According to the visitation supervisor, the
visits went well but there was “not a whole lot of time for things to go wrong.”
She opined the father could not have unsupervised contact with the child.
The department case manager agreed. He testified there were no
additional services the department could provide within the statutory time frames
that would allow the father to safely parent the child on an unsupervised basis.
We recognize the father completed anger management and parenting
classes as directed by the district court and did not physically abuse this child.
But the department understandably was wary of moving to unsupervised contact
in light of the father’s history. As the department case manager testified,
Well, those services were provided during the very first case in
Cedar Rapids or Linn County, I believe, and then the child was
actually returned to him, and she was then removed shortly after
the return due to physical abuse concerns, I believe, that he
pleaded guilty to. Additionally, after that incident he has another
child who is seven months old after all those services, and he
breaks that child’s arm. I don’t believe he’s safe around children,
and I don’t believe any anger management course or anything like
that can change his history of what he’s done.3
In our view, the department did not have an obligation to test the waters a third
time before determining this child’s safety would be compromised by
unsupervised contact with the father.
3
This testimony was elicited during a hearing on the State’s motion to waive reasonable
efforts. See Iowa Code § 232.102(12)(c). The State later withdrew this motion but the
entire child-in-need-of-assistance file, including a transcript of this hearing, was included
in the termination record.
4
We conclude the child could not be returned to the father’s custody. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h).
II. Best Interests
Termination must also be in the child’s best interests. See In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Although the visitation supervisor acknowledged
there was a bond between the father and his infant child, the risk to the child’s
physical safety warranted termination. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of
the father’s parental rights to the child.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of J.W., Minor Child, B.W., Father
Combined Opinion