IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-2052
Filed February 8, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF S.H.,
Minor child,
W.B., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J.
Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Dustin A. Baker of Baker Law, Dubuque, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Patricia M. Reisen-Ottavi, Dubuque, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights,1 claiming the State
failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the child and the juvenile
court should have granted him an additional six months to seek reunification.
We conduct a de novo review of proceedings terminating parental rights.
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). An order terminating parental
rights will be upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116 (2016). In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d
703, 706 (Iowa 2010).
The father and mother were previously involved with the department of
human services (DHS) and juvenile court concerning an older child, D.B. D.B.’s
child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) case was opened in September 2015. The
father did not engage in the services offered to him.2 While D.B.’s juvenile
proceedings were ongoing, S.H. was born in March 2016, testing positive for an
illegal substance (THC). The father has a history of substance abuse, domestic
abuse, and as noted above, a lack of participation in services. Services were
again offered to the father at the commencement of S.H.’s CINA case in March.
Despite receiving notice of the juvenile proceedings in April, the father did not
engage in services or interactions offered with S.H. He denied paternity of the
child and did not comply with paternity testing until required to do so after he was
jailed in June.
1
The mother consented to the termination of her parental rights.
2
The father’s parental rights to D.B. were terminated in August 2016.
3
A petition to terminate his parental rights was filed on September 12,
2016. The permanency and termination hearing was held on November 16. The
DHS social worker testified the father had been offered services prior to his being
jailed. The social worker also stated the father had never met S.H. due to his
continued incarceration. The social worker noted the jail was without facilities for
child visitation. The social worker also testified she was informed by the father
that he faced various criminal charges. At the time of the termination hearing,
the father was facing charges of domestic violence causing injury (S.H.’s mother
being the victim), violation of a no-contact order, felony possession of a firearm,
and preventing apprehension.3 The father also informed the social worker he
faced a five-year term and the likelihood of eighteen months in prison if
convicted.
The father was present at the termination hearing but did not testify.4 His
attorney requested the court grant the father an additional six months to seek
reunification, noting the father was “hopeful to be released in the near future.”
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (h). We may affirm the termination order on any
ground that we find supported by clear and convincing evidence. D.W., 791
N.W.2d at 707. The father does not challenge the grounds for termination, and
after our de novo review we conclude grounds for termination exist under section
232.116(1)(g) (allowing termination if the court finds all of the following: the child
3
We assume the offense of “preventing apprehension” is an alleged violation of Iowa
Code section 719.3, an aggravated misdemeanor
4
The father’s petition contends the father testified and explained that he anticipated
being released “within the next several days.” However, the official transcript of the
termination hearing does not support the claim that the father took the witness stand.
4
has been adjudicated CINA, the court has terminated parental rights with respect
to another child who is a member of the same family, there is clear and
convincing evidence that the parent continues to lack the ability or willingness to
respond to services which would correct the situation, and there is clear and
convincing evidence that an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct
the situation).
The father did not raise his lack-of-reasonable-efforts complaint in the
juvenile court and thus cannot raise it now. In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 442
(Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (noting a party challenging reasonable efforts must raise
the issue and demand other services prior to the termination hearing); see also
Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (stating an issue may not
be raised for the first time on appeal).
With respect to his request for an additional six months, in order to grant
such an extension section 232.104(2)(b) requires that the juvenile court be able
to “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes
which comprise the basis for the determination that 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 light of the father’s incarceration, his failure to address long-
standing issues of domestic abuse and substance abuse, and his lack of housing
and employment, successful reunification in six months is not realistic.
The child is placed in relative placement. The caretakers have indicated a
willingness to adopt the child and have already adopted the child’s siblings,
including two half siblings and one full sibling. They also have demonstrated an
5
ability to meet all of the children’s needs and allow the sibling group to remain
intact.
We agree with the juvenile court termination and adoption will best provide
S.H. with permanency. We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating
the father’s parental rights to S.H.
AFFIRMED.