IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0291
Filed April 28, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF A.D. and I.D.,
Minor Children,
T.M., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Jason A. Burns,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Robert W. Davison, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Deborah M. Skelton, Walford, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021).
2
VOGEL, Senior Judge.
The father of A.D., born in 2011, and I.D., born in 2012, appeals the
termination of his parental rights.1 Agreeing with the juvenile court that the father
has not participated in offered services or demonstrated any consistency engaging
with his children, we affirm.
In June 2019, the children were living with their mother when it was reported
she was using methamphetamine and leaving the children without proper care.
The father was not living in the family home at the time, but prior child abuse
assessments against him date back to 2012. The children were voluntarily placed
with extended family. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) sought
formal removal of the children, which the court granted on August 2. The father
stipulated the children were in need of assistance on August 9 and that removal
should continue. At the September 6 dispositional hearing, the court adopted
DHS’s permanency plan of offered services, which included that the father
complete a substance-abuse evaluation and follow any recommendations. With
the father showing little progress in either consistency of contact with the children
or participating in offered services, the State moved to terminate his parental rights.
After a January 28, 2021 hearing, the court granted the State’s petition. The father
appeals.
“We review termination of parental rights proceedings de novo.” In re J.H.,
952 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2020). “While we are not bound by the juvenile court's
factual findings, we accord them weight, especially in assessing witness
1 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She does not appeal.
3
credibility.” Id. “‘[O]ur fundamental concern’ on review ‘is the child’s best
interests.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa
2014)).
The father’s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) (2021).2 He only challenges the findings as to the fourth element,
which requires the State to establish that the children cannot be returned to his
custody as provided in section 232.102, that is without exposing the children to
adjudicatory harm. See Iowa Code § 232.102(4)(a)(2) (requiring the court find by
clear and convincing evidence the children “cannot be protected from some harm
which would justify the adjudication of the child[ren] as [children] in need of
assistance”). The father asserts there are “minimal safety concerns regarding the
children” in his care.
The record details three founded child abuse assessments in which the
father was the perpetrator of physical abuse. The incidents are dated July 7, 2012,
January 12, 2018, and July 1, 2020. During the eighteen months the children were
removed from the home, the father has failed to address these findings. At the
termination hearing he minimized any abuse, stating the reports were
2Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) provides the court may terminate a parent’s
parental when the court finds that all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or
for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present
time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents
as provided in section 232.102.
4
“circumstantial” and a “misunderstanding.” In spite of the three founded child
abuse reports detailing physical abuse, he denied that he had any anger
management issues. He has inconsistently visited with the children either in
person or by video chat throughout these proceedings, canceling twenty of twenty-
eight offered visits. By late October 2020, the children’s therapist noted how the
children regressed after their visits, causing the therapist to strongly recommend
contact with the father stop “to allow the children [to] heal and process trauma.”
After examining the prior child abuse findings and the trauma inflicted upon the
children, the juvenile court determined the children could not be in the father’s care
without risking adjudicatory harm. We agree.
Next the father asserts it is not in the children’s best interests that his
parental rights be terminated, in part asserting a bond between the children and
the father. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2), (3)(c).
The juvenile court found the father’s “actions echo far louder than his
words.” A review of the record confirms the details of that finding. In a January
23, 2020 DHS progress report, the worker noted the father “has sporadic contact
with his children” either in person or phone calls. The March 3 progress report
noted that although his interactions with the children were positive, they remained
sporadic. The father did not attend the March 6, 2020 review hearing, but his
attorney informed the court that the father did not resist the current
recommendations, which included that he cooperate with services and visits as
well as complete a substance-abuse evaluation. The June 8 DHS report mirrored
prior reports that the father still had not maintained consistent contact with the
children, submitted to a substance-abuse evaluation, or participated in other
5
offered services. The report concluded with concerns about his stability and
caretaking skills “due to his lack of engagement since DHS became involved.”
The August 3 DHS report again noted the father’s sporadic contact with the
children, and his lack of engagement continued to feed into DHS’s concern about
the father’s overall stability and his ability to care for the children on a full-time
basis. By the time of the August 7 permanency hearing, he still had not participated
in a substance-abuse evaluation. The court continued to order the prior DHS
recommendations and found the father had not requested any additional services.
In late 2020, the father was invited to participate in a family team meeting, but he
failed to attend. In December 2020, the DHS worker again reached out to the
father, but he told her he was not ready for the worker to visit his home. He claimed
he would get back to the worker, but he failed to do so. While he attended the
adjudicatory hearing on August 9, 2019, he failed to attend the dispositional
hearing on September 6, 2019, the review hearing on March 6, 2020, and the
permanency hearing on August 7, 2020.
The record is replete with the father’s inconsistent efforts, by failing to
engage in offered services and only having sporadic contact with his children. The
court found it was in the children’s best interests to sever the father’s parental
rights. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). While there may be some bond between the
children and the father, the court also did not find evidence of a strong bond that
weighs against termination. See id. § 232.116(3)(c). We agree and affirm.
AFFIRMED.