IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0094
Filed July 21, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF J.W.,
Minor Child,
L.W., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker,
District Associate Judge.
The father of the minor child appeals the order terminating the father’s
parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Marshall W. Orsini of Law Offices of Marshall W. Orsini, PLC, Des Moines,
for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Chandlor Collins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Magdalena Beme Reese of the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Des
Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
This case was aptly described below as a case of children raising a child.
At the time of the child’s birth in 2019, the child’s father was fifteen years old and
the child’s mother was seventeen years old. Plagued by more than just their youth,
the parents struggled to adequately care for the child, and eventually their parental
rights were terminated as a result. The father appeals. The mother does not.
Juvenile authorities became involved with the family after a domestic
violence episode between the parents in the presence of the then four-month-old
child. The child was removed from the home and later adjudicated a child in need
of assistance. After juvenile authorities became involved, it became apparent that,
besides repeated episodes of domestic violence, both parents had substance-
abuse issues, the mother had mental-health issues, and both parents were
involved in incidents leading to criminal charges against them. After the parents
failed to adequately participate in or respond to services, the mother’s parental
rights were terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020) and the
father’s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b),
(e), and (h).
Review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings under Iowa Code
chapter 232 follow a three-step analysis: (1) “determine whether any ground for
termination under section 232.116(1) has been established”; (2) determine
whether the best-interest-of-the-child framework set forth in section 232.116(2)
supports termination of parental rights; and (3) “consider whether any exceptions
in section 232.116(3) apply to preclude termination of parental rights.” In re M.W.,
876 N.W.2d 212, 219–20 (Iowa 2016). We apply a de novo standard of review,
3
which does not bind us to the juvenile court’s findings, but we give weight to them,
especially in assessing witness credibility. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa
2018).
The father challenges only the first step of the analysis, asserting the State
failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination. Alternatively, he asserts even
if the grounds have been established, he should have been given six more months
to work toward reunification. See Iowa Code §§ 232.117(5) (permitting the court
to consider other permanency options under section 232.104 if parental rights are
not terminated), 232.104(2)(b) (permitting a permanency option of granting an
additional six months for parents to work toward reunification).
As for the father’s challenge to the statutory grounds, we note that when, as
here, the juvenile court orders termination of parental rights on more than one
ground, we need only find support for one ground to affirm. See In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We choose to rely on section 232.116(1)(h), which
permits termination upon showing:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(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 six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child
cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
in section 232.102 at the present time.
The father challenges only the fourth element. After our de novo review, we agree
with the juvenile court the child could not be returned to the father’s custody.
4
Besides the fact the father admitted the child could not be returned to his
care, we note the father missed many visits offered to him, resulting in him only
seeing the child a handful of times over the nine-month period between removal
and the termination hearing. All of those visits were supervised, as the father did
not progress to the point that unsupervised visits would have been safe. The father
claims transportation issues hampered his ability to see the child, but
transportation issues do not explain all the periods during which the father
essentially disappeared from involvement with the child and contact with service
providers. Also, the father’s claim of lack of gas money to attend some visits is
problematic, as the father’s lack of employment and failure to find transportation
casts doubt on his ability to provide for the child’s needs on a long-term basis.
Additionally, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many visits offered to the father were
by videoconference, which would not have involved any travel by the father. He
skipped them anyway.
The father’s lack of involvement with the child makes returning the child to
him even more hazardous because the child has medical issues that demand
additional effort by the child’s caregiver. There is no indication in the record that
the father is up to speed on the child’s medical needs or could meet them if the
child were placed in his care.
Beyond his lack of involvement with the child, the father also failed to
adequately address his substance-abuse issues. He also failed to address the
repeated episodes of domestic violence in the home—a problem downplayed by
both parents.
5
After considering all the circumstances, we conclude the child cannot be
safely placed in the father’s custody. As a result, we also conclude the State
established statutory grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(h).
We also disagree with the father’s claim he should have been given six
more months to work toward reunification. Before we can grant such a request,
we must be able to “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected
behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination that the need
for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the
additional six-month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). As well-stated by the
State in its response on appeal, the father is asking that we “ignore a history that
did not show progress for the chance that he can show it moving forward.” We
decline to ignore that history and find no evidence causing us to believe the father
would be substantially better suited to take over the care of the child in six months
than he was at the time of the termination hearing. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d
100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (noting a child should not be deprived of permanency in the
hope that someday the parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a
stable home for the child). Additionally, the father’s plans were to continue in his
relationship with the mother and they would work as a team to care for the child.
Given the mother’s shortcomings, which led to the termination of her rights, and
the violence-laced relationship the parents have, this plan is disquieting and does
not persuade us to grant an additional six months to the father.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.