IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0465
Filed September 12, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.,
Minor Child,
K.F., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Charles E. Isaacson of Charles Isaacson Law, PC, Des Moines, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
ConGarry D. Williams of Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines,
guardian ad litem 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
2016. He contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by
the district court.
The court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(g) and (h) (2017). We may affirm if we find clear and
convincing evidence to support either of the grounds. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d
63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). On our de novo review, we will focus on Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(g), which requires proof (1) the child was adjudicated in need
of assistance; (2) the district court terminated parental rights to another child “who
is a member of the same family”; (3) “[t]here 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 (4) “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that
an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation.”
The parents of the child had a long history of involvement with the
department of human services. The mother was addicted to heroin and other
drugs. The father’s relationship with the child’s mother was marked by mutual
domestic abuse. The parents’ rights to three other children were terminated. See
In re K.F., No. 17-0409, 2017 WL 2875883, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. July 6, 2017).
The child who is the subject of these proceedings was born with drugs in
her system. The district court ordered her removal from the parents’ care in
December 2016. Following her removal, the father never cared for her in an
unsupervised setting. The child was adjudicated in need of assistance.
3
Four months after the removal, the district court determined the parents
were making progress toward reunification. The court dismissed a termination
petition filed by the State and granted the parents a six-month extension to
facilitate reunification. Among the obligations the court placed on the father was a
duty to “[b]e open and honest regarding his relationship and contacts with [the
mother,] including reporting to DHS the time, place, duration and nature of any
contacts with her.”
Six months passed without progress on this front. At a permanency review
hearing, the father acknowledged he had an ongoing relationship with the child’s
mother. In a follow-up order, the district court found, “until his testimony . . . he did
not notify DHS or [the service provider] . . . that he had been seeing [the mother],
even in spite of their directly asking him if he had been having contact with her.”
The court stated, “Time and time again, [the father] has shown that he cannot be
honest about his continuing relationship with [the mother,] and therefore cannot be
trusted to be protective of his child.” The court modified the primary permanency
goal for the child from reunification with her parents to termination of parental
rights.
After the State moved forward with termination, the father made progress in
certain areas. He learned therapeutic skills to manage his anger, obtained housing
that would accommodate his daughter, held a job, and participated in twice-weekly
supervised visitation. At the termination hearing in February 2018, he testified the
last time he saw the mother was in December 2017, when she threw a rock through
his window. He testified, he “did not want her in [his] life,” and, through therapy,
was “learning more about healthy relationships and putting up boundaries.”
4
Despite this new-found commitment to severing his ties with the mother, the
father acknowledged he failed to request a no-contact order after the rock-throwing
incident. He also acknowledged police who were called to the scene encouraged
him to pursue this remedy. The father’s failure to take proactive steps to protect
the child from the mother is consistent with his past practice. See K.F., 2017 WL
2875883, at *3 (noting father’s ongoing relationship with mother during prior
termination proceeding and stating “[h]e previously informed the court he had no
contact with the mother, and yet, they conceived a child together during that time”).
After refusing to disclose his ongoing relationship with the mother in the prior
termination action, he squandered the six-month extension afforded by the court
in this action. Under these circumstances, we are not convinced an additional
period of rehabilitation was warranted.
We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of B.A., Minor Child
Combined Opinion