IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1333
Filed January 23, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF T.S.,
Minor Child,
S.G., Mother,
Petitioner-Appellant,
T.A.S., Father,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision denying her petition seeking
to terminate the father’s parental rights. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Lori L. Nelson of The Sayer Law Group, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant.
T.A.S., Waterloo, pro se appellee father.
Timothy J. Luce of Anfinson & Luce, PLC, Waterloo, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother appeals the district court’s decision denying her petition seeking
to terminate the father’s parental rights. We find the father abandoned the child
and termination is in the child’s best interest. We reverse the juvenile court’s
decision.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
S.G., mother, and T.A.S., father, are the parents of a child, T.S., born in
2012. The parents never married. The parents’ relationship ended in August
2012, several months after the child’s birth, after the father was charged with
domestic abuse assault against the mother. A five-year protective order was put
in place for the mother.
After the parties separated, the father was convicted of further domestic
abuse assault charges and child endangerment for another child. No custodial
order or request for support has been filed with the court. The father has not seen
or sought contact with the child since 2013.
The mother has full-time employment and is able to meet all of the child’s
needs. The mother lives near her parents’ home and her brother’s family. In March
2018, the mother established a co-guardianship with her parents to ensure her
child’s future care. The mother is presently engaged to be married.
In March 2018 the mother filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental
rights. Following nine separate attempts by the mother to serve the petition on the
father, including in person at his home addresses and work address and phone
calls to all phone numbers found, the court authorized notice via publication. The
father did not oppose the petition, appear in court, or otherwise show any interest
3
in maintaining his parental rights. The mother and maternal grandfather testified
at the hearing. The child’s guardian ad litem stated at the close of the hearing that
termination of the father’s parental rights “may be in the child’s best interest.”
On July 6, the district court ruled the father had abandoned the child—the
father provided no support for the child, had no relationship with the child, and had
not had or sought contact with the child since 2013. The court found the child had
a right to financial support from the father and the father did not pose a threat to
the child; the court ruled terminating the father’s parental rights was “not in the
child’s or the community’s best interests.” The court dismissed the mother’s
petition to terminate the father’s rights.
The mother filed a motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend pursuant to Iowa
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904. The mother provided documentation of the father’s
criminal history including domestic abuse assaults, child endangerment, and
positive drug screens occurring after the parties separated. The court denied the
motion.
The mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
Our review in private termination proceedings is de novo. In re G.A., 826
N.W.2d 125, 127 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012). We give deference to the factual findings
of the juvenile court, especially those relating to the credibility of witnesses, but we
are not bound by the court’s findings. In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa
1998). The grounds for termination of a parent’s rights must be established by
clear and convincing evidence. In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Iowa Ct. App.
4
2010). Our primary concern in private termination proceedings is the best interest
of the child. Iowa Code § 600A.1 (2018); G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 127.
III. Analysis
A. Abandonment. Iowa Code chapter 600A provides the exclusive
means for a voluntary termination of parental rights by a parent or prospective
parent. See G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 127 n.1 (quoting In re T.N.M., 542 N.W.2d 574,
576 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995)).
Section 600A.8(3)(b) provides:
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.
The phrase, “[t]o abandon a minor child” has been defined as meaning a
parent “rejects the duties imposed by the parent-child relationship, . . . which may
be evinced by the person, while being able to do so, making no provision or making
only a marginal effort to provide for the support of the child or to communicate with
the child.” Iowa Code § 600A.2(19).
The father here has not maintained substantial and continuous nor repeated
contact with the child through communication, visitation, or any contribution toward
5
the child’s support. We find the father has abandoned the child within the meaning
of section 600A.8.
B. Best interest of the child. The Iowa Code specifies requirements
for a biological parent to undertake for the best interest of the child. This includes
the requirement the parent “affirmatively assume the duties encompassed by the
roll of being a parent.” Id. § 600A.1. We consider the child’s physical, mental, and
emotional needs and the parent-child bond in determining the best interest of the
child. In re Q.G., 911 N.W.2d 761, 771 (Iowa 2018). The burden is on the parent
seeking to terminate the other’s rights to show by clear and convincing evidence
the child’s best interest would be advanced by the termination. Id. at 770.
Here, the mother has shown the father has not demonstrated any interest
in the child, has not made any effort to maintain communication, and has not
maintained any place in the child’s life. See G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 131. The only
support provided by the father consisted of two cans of formula years ago. The
father has not made even a nominal effort to resist this termination. On the other
hand, the mother is self-supporting and has made arrangements for the care of the
child if something should happen to her. Termination of the father’s rights will not
alter the status quo and will protect the future of the child with the only family the
child has known. We conclude termination of the father’s parental rights is in the
child’s best interest.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.