IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1933
Filed January 11, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF G.R.,
Minor Child,
J.R., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela A. Doyle,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental
rights to his child. AFFIRMED.
Douglas E. Cook of Cook Law Firm, Jewell, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd (until
withdrawal) and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Derek J. Johnson of Johnson & Bonzer, P.L.C., Fort Dodge, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to
his child, G.R., born in August 2014. We review termination-of-parental-rights
proceedings de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). “We are
not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact, but we do give them weight,
especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.” Id. (quoting In re A.M., 843
N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014)). Our primary consideration is the best interests of
the child. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l) (2016).1 He does not challenge the
statutory grounds for termination on appeal; thus, we do not address this issue
and affirm the statutory grounds for termination. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010) (stating that when a parent does not challenge the existence of
statutory grounds, we need not address the issue). Instead, the father contends
termination is not in the child’s best interests because the child may be adopted
by her maternal grandmother, which he believes would create a dangerous
situation for the child given the child’s mother’s serious substance-abuse issues.
At trial, the father requested that a guardianship be established with the child’s
grandmother.2
G.R. has lived with her maternal grandmother her entire life. The
grandmother wants to adopt G.R. She has sought professional help on how to
1
The mother voluntarily consented to the termination of her parental rights to the child.
She does not appeal.
2
The father does not make this same argument on appeal.
3
handle her daughter’s substance-abuse issues and protect G.R. In determining
best interests, the juvenile court noted:
Neither parent is in a position to assume custody of the child
at this time. [The mother] and [father] do not have suitable homes
for the child. Neither parent desires custody of the child at this
time. [The father] does not even want custody after he is released
from prison, but believes the child should remain in [the
grandmother]’s home. The material, physical, mental and
emotional condition and needs of the child cannot be met by the
parents, but have been met and continue to be met by the maternal
grandmother. In order to further the long-term nurturing and growth
of the child, and to meet the physical, mental and emotional
condition and needs of the child, the best placement is in the
custody of the [Iowa] Department of Human Services [(DHS)] for
eventual adoption.
We do not disagree with the juvenile court’s conclusion termination is in G.R.’s
best interests so that she may be available for adoption. We affirm this part of
the juvenile court’s termination order.
The father also argues the juvenile court should have granted his request
for an additional six months to work toward reunification. Under Iowa Code
section 232.104(2)(b), a court may authorize a six-month extension if it
determines “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.”
The father last had contact with his child in December 2014, when she
was four months old, even though DHS provided him other opportunities to visit
with the child. The father testified at the combined permanency and termination
hearing that he has a significant history of substance abuse. At the time of the
hearing, he was incarcerated on charges of extortion and possession of
methamphetamine. He testified he continued to use methamphetamine until his
incarceration in January 2016. The father has a tentative discharge date in
4
February 2018 but hopes to be paroled before that time. The father admitted at
the termination hearing that he would not be able to parent G.R. upon his release
from prison but did not want his parental rights terminated because he wanted
the opportunity to parent her at some point in the future. Based upon our de
novo review of the record, we are not persuaded the need for removal would no
longer exist at the end of six months. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We affirm
the juvenile court’s denial of the father’s request for an additional six months.
AFFIRMED.