IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0033
Filed May 26, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF I.C.,
Minor Child,
R.C., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a daughter.
AFFIRMED.
Michael S. Fisher of Fisher Law Office, Oskaloosa, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Mary Baird Krafka, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
A father, Russell, appeals the termination of his parental rights to a
daughter, I.C. His only argument is that ending their legal relationship diverges
from I.C.’s best interests. When the juvenile court heard evidence, Russell was in
jail awaiting trial on charges of sexual assault and incest against I.C., as well as
sexual assault and child endangerment of her older half-brother, I.F. Plus, the
record shows Russell has a history of criminality and drug addiction. These facts
compel the conclusion that termination of his parental rights serves I.C.’s best
interests. So we affirm.1
This family’s involvement with the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS) began in July 2019, when workers received reports that I.F. suffered
physical abuse. His mother, Danielle, was living with the alleged perpetrator. An
investigation revealed Russell was also staying with Danielle and the two
children. Because Russell is a registered sex offender,2 he was violating the law
by living with I.F., who is not his child.
Danielle and the children moved. But the DHS returned the next month on
reports that Russell was back in their home. When interviewed, I.F. disclosed that
Russell sexually abused him. I.F. also said Russell shot him with a BB gun as a
form of discipline. I.F. reported that he told his mother about the abuse, but she
1 “We review child-welfare proceedings de novo.” In re A.H., 950 N.W.2d 27, 33
(Iowa Ct. App. 2020). “The juvenile court’s fact findings do not bind us, but we
give them weight, particularly with regard to credibility.” Id. Our key consideration
is the child’s best interests. Id.
2 Russell’s criminal history before these incidents includes four convictions for
domestic abuse assault, two violations of sex offender registry requirements, two
convictions for drug paraphernalia, and a conviction for third-degree sexual abuse.
3
did nothing. A child-abuse assessment recorded a founded allegation of physical
abuse by Russell against I.F. At that time, I.C. did not disclose that she had been
abused.
The DHS removed the children from the parents in August 2019, and they
have not returned to their care.3 Shortly after removal, I.C. tested positive for
methamphetamine. Russell later admitted using methamphetamine and
marijuana. Another child-abuse assessment logged founded allegations for the
presence of illegal drugs. The State charged Russell with third-degree sexual
abuse, child endangerment, and failure to register as a sex offender. He was
arrested in October 2019 and remained in jail awaiting criminal trial through the
termination proceedings.
But that was not the end of the allegations against Russell. In summer
2020, I.C. disclosed that Russell had sexually abused her. A new child-abuse
assessment reached a founded allegation of sexual abuse in the second
degree. So the State added criminal charges of sexual abuse, incest, and child
endangerment. After I.C.’s disclosures, a no-contact order prevented Russell from
having visitation. In fact, Russell did not participate in any services while in jail,
other than medication management.
On the positive side, the foster parents were meeting I.C.’s physical and
mental-health needs. But her physical condition was concerning. Medical
professionals at the child protection center diagnosed I.C. with rickets, a condition
related to the softening or weakening of the bones usually because of a vitamin D
3The DHS placed both I.C., and her half-brother, I.F., with I.F.’s paternal aunt and
uncle, who had taken steps to become foster parents.
4
deficiency. Her poor growth requires special care. She also has several
mental-health diagnoses, including post-traumatic stress disorder and autism
spectrum disorder. The foster parents facilitate her visits with a therapist.
After assessing these circumstances, the State petitioned to terminate the
parental rights of Russell and Danielle.4 Following hearings in October 2020, the
juvenile court terminated their rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1),
paragraphs (e) and (f) (2020). Only Russell appeals.5
Russell argues termination is not in I.C.’s best interests. He emphasizes
that he “adamantly denied the allegations” and was in jail during the termination
proceedings as he was “waiting for his day in court.” He also asserts
“[p]ermanently separating a father from his child due to his current incarceration is
not in the child’s long-term best interests, especially when there are other options
to ensure the child’s safety while reestablishing a relationship with her father upon
his release.” Russell does not elaborate on those other options.
In making the best-interests determination, we consider the child’s safety,
the best placement for furthering her long-term nurturing and growth, as well as
her physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2); see In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010). Safety and the need
for a permanent home mark the “defining elements” in a child’s best interests. In
re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially).
4 One of the primary concerns in the child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings was
Danielle’s refusal to believe the children’s sexual abuse allegations and her
continuing defense of Russell.
5 Danielle did not timely file her appeal, so she does not participate.
5
We find clear and convincing evidence that it is in I.C.’s best interests to
terminate Russell’s parental rights. Russell is a convicted sex offender. And
several child-abuse assessments verified that he sexually and physically abused
I.C. and her half-brother. Even beyond that, Russell has not shown he can be a
safe parent for I.C. in the short- or long-term. For instance, he has not engaged in
services while in jail. He has unresolved substance-abuse and domestic-violence
issues. And he has failed to register as a sex offender. Termination is not only
appropriate, but ensuring I.C.’s best interests compels this conclusion.
On the other side of the equation, I.C. is doing well in her placement. The
foster parents are addressing her considerable physical- and mental-health
needs. And they are interested in adopting her and I.F. The DHS social worker
testified I.C. has bonded with the foster parents and is comfortable in their
home. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b). To that end, termination of Russell’s
parental rights will start the process toward a more stable and promising
environment for I.C.’s future.
AFFIRMED.