IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1058
Filed March 7, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF E.T.,
Minor Child,
M.T., Mother,
Petitioner-Appellee,
J.T., Father,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Charles K. Borth,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights in a
private termination action. AFFIRMED.
Bethany J. Verhoef Brands of Brands Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant
father.
Matthew G. Sease of Kemp & Sease, Des Moines, and John M. Sandy of
Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, for appellee mother.
James C. Hastings, Okoboji, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights in a
private termination action. We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to
show the father abandoned the child. Also, termination is in the child’s best
interests. We affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The mother and father were married in October of 2009. E.T. was born in
2010. The parents’ marriage was dissolved in January of 2013. In August 2013
a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) petition was filed regarding safety
concerns, as the father had left E.T.’s half-brother unsupervised in order to visit
his girlfriend. The father had previously been arrested in 2011 for false
imprisonment and assault, and in 2013 for disorderly conduct, child
endangerment, criminal mischief, operating while intoxicated, and two violations
of no-contact orders.
The father did not attend any review hearings in the CINA case. Contact
between E.T. and the father was limited and sporadic. However, as the CINA
matter progressed and a petition to terminate parental rights was filed by the
State, the father became more active and made significant progress toward the
goals set by the court. Ultimately, the father’s parental rights were not
terminated, and the CINA was dismissed in 2015.
In March 2016, the father filed for the initiation of contempt proceedings
against the mother for obstructing visitation. The district court denied the
petition. The father again filed for contempt proceedings five days later. The
mother filed a request for modification at the same time. The district court found
3
the mother in contempt for denying visitation, but allowed her to purge the
contempt if she followed a transitional visitation schedule. The mother and father
engaged in mediation and reached a temporary visitation schedule. The court
order allowed the mother to restrict the father’s visitation if he engaged in criminal
behavior.
However, the father began to abuse alcohol again. His paramour filed for
a protective order alleging domestic abuse and sexual assault. The father quit
his job in August of 2016. In November of 2016, the father was charged with
domestic abuse by strangulation causing injury. The case was pending at the
time of termination. While under a no-contact order against the domestic-abuse
victim, the father allegedly broke into the victim’s home in the middle of the night
while she and her two children slept and while there threatened her, made crude
comments, assaulted her, and raped her. The victim’s son eventually called the
police. The father was charged with violation of a no-contact order, first-degree
burglary, and third-degree sexual abuse. These charges were also pending at
the time of the termination.
While the father’s destructive and unacceptable behavior increased, he
significantly decreased his contact with E.T. The mother estimates the father has
seen E.T only thirty times during the course of his life. The last in-person contact
was in October 2016. The father has also had limited contact with E.T. over the
telephone.
The mother filed a petition for termination of the father’s parental rights. A
termination hearing was held May 16, 2017. The juvenile court found the father
had abandoned E.T. and terminated his parental rights. The father now appeals.
4
II. Standard of Review
Our review in matters pertaining to termination of parental rights under
Iowa Code chapter 600A (2017) is de novo. In re D.E.E., 472 N.W.2d 628, 629
(Iowa Ct. App. 1991). In cases tried in equity, we give weight to the factual
findings of the district court but are not bound by them.
Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). In termination proceedings, our paramount
consideration is the best interests of the child. Iowa Code § 600A.1.
III. Abandonment
The father’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code
section 600A.8(3)(b). Under this section:
If the child is six months of age or older when the termination
hearing is held, a parent is deemed to have abandoned the child
unless the parent maintains substantial and continuous or repeated
contact with the child as demonstrated by contribution toward
support of the child of a reasonable amount, according to the
parent’s means, and as demonstrated by any of the following:
(1) Visiting the child at least monthly when physically and
financially able to do so and when not prevented from doing so by
the person having lawful custody of the child.
(2) Regular communication with the child or with the person
having the care or custody of the child, when physically and
financially unable to visit the child or when prevented from visiting
the child by the person having lawful custody of the child.
(3) Openly living with the child for a period of six months
within the one-year period immediately preceding the termination of
parental rights hearing and during that period openly holding
himself or herself out to be the parent of the child.
Id. § 600A.8(3)(b).
The father claims he did not abandon E.T. because the mother obstructed
his access to the child. E.T. was seven years old at the time the father’s rights
were terminated. The juvenile court found the mother’s statement E.T. has only
seen his father thirty times in his life to be credible.
5
The father claims the mother would not permit him to have phone contact
with E.T. He points to a single text message where, in response to a demand for
a telephone call, the mother stated, “Well the world doesn’t revolve around you or
your schedule just because [you] say jump doesn’t mean I say how high . . . We
are busy he will call when he has time.” The mother presented evidence the only
telephone contact was one call in 2016. We also find the mothers evidence to be
credible and find the father did not attempt to have regular meaningful contact
with E.T.
The father clearly did not visit E.T. at least once monthly when able to do
so. However, the father also claims the mother refused to allow visitation with
E.T. The evidence presented at the termination hearing shows the mother had
previously interfered with visitation and in doing so, was found to be in contempt.
The mother remedied the contempt by fully implementing the transitional
visitation plan. The father was then charged in connection with several crimes,
including assault and sexual abuse. The mother was well within her rights under
the court’s order to withhold visitation. The father was in jail for a number of
months but even when not, he made no effort to visit E.T. The father “may not
use his incarceration as a justification for his lack of relationship with the child.”
In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 8 (Iowa 1993). We find the juvenile court properly
found the father abandoned E.T.
IV. Best Interests
As a result of the limited visitation or contact he has had with the father,
E.T. has shown anxiety, distraction, instances of developmental regression, and
suffered in school. The juvenile court found the father’s life “has again spiraled
6
out of control, and whatever minimal relationship he had with [E.T] has again
suffered because of it. . . . [E.T.] deserves to suffer no more from that instability
caused by [the father] being a tangential part of his life.” We agree with the
juvenile court and find the stability and permanency achieved by terminating the
father’s rights is in E.T.’s best interests.
AFFIRMED.