In the Interest of C.F., H.F., and N.F., Minor Children ( 2024 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-0553
Filed January 10, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF C.F., H.F., and N.F.,
Minor Children,
N.F., Father,
Petitioner-Appellee
A.D., Mother,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Humboldt County, Hans Becker,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code
chapter 600A (2022). AFFIRMED.
Barbara J. Westphal, Belmond, for appellant
Nicholas Ferry, Dakota City, self-represented appellee.
Neven J. Conrad of Conrad Law Firm, Laurens, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
The father of three children—born in 2013, 2014, and 2017—filed a petition
seeking to terminate the parental rights of the children’s mother based on
abandonment pursuant to Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2022).1
A parent petitioning for termination of the other parent’s parental rights
pursuant to chapter 600A must prove two elements by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Q.G., 911 N.W.2d 761, 770 (Iowa 2018). The first element requires
proof that statutory grounds for termination exist, and the second element requires
proof that termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Id.Following a hearing, the juvenile court found that the father established the first
element by proving the mother had abandoned the children within the meaning of
section 600A.8(3)(b). The court also found termination of the mother’s rights to be
in the children’s best interests.
The mother appeals. She challenges neither the statutory grounds nor the
best-interests finding in general. Instead, she asserts more precisely that, when
making its best-interests finding, the juvenile court gave inadequate weight to the
1 The mother has a fourth child, born in 2018. Because the fourth child was born
during the marriage of the mother and father of the oldest three children, the father
of the oldest three children is the legal father of the fourth child. See Iowa Code
§§ 144.13(2) (requiring the husband of the mother to be named as the father on a
child’s birth certificate “[i]f the mother was married at the time of conception, birth,
or at any time during the period between conception and birth”), 252A.3(4) (“A child
or children born of parents who, at any time prior or subsequent to the birth of such
child, have entered into a civil or religious marriage ceremony, shall be deemed
the legitimate child or children of both parents, regardless of the validity of such
marriage.”). Nevertheless, all parties acknowledge that the father of the oldest
three children is not the biological father of the fourth child. As the fourth child is
not a party to this proceeding, our references to “the father” throughout this opinion
refer to the father of the three oldest children.
3
children’s bonds with their younger half-sibling. She contends it is not in the
children’s best interests to terminate her rights because the children would be
better off maintaining the familial relationship with their half-sibling.
We review private terminations under Iowa Code chapter 600A de novo. In
re B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). We give weight to the trial court’s
factual findings, particularly when considering credibility of witnesses, but we are
not bound by them. Id. We give “due consideration” to the parents’ interests, but
our “paramount consideration” is the best interests of the children. Id. (citation
omitted).
Following our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that
termination is in the children’s best interests. Iowa Code section 600A.1(2) sets
forth the meaning of the “best interest of a child,” requiring that the parent
“affirmatively assume the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent.”
Among other factors, we must consider whether the parent has fulfilled the parent’s
financial obligations, demonstrated continued interest in the children, made a
genuine effort to maintain communication with the children, and established and
maintained a place of importance in the children’s lives. Iowa Code § 600A.1(2).
First and foremost, we consider the children’s safety and “the best placement for
furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren].” B.H.A., 938
N.W.2d at 232 (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(2)); see also In re A.H.B., 791
N.W.2d 687, 690 (Iowa 2010) (recognizing the best-interest framework from
chapter 232 cases is helpful when assessing best interests in chapter 600A
cases).
4
The mother builds her best-interests argument on the premise that
termination would impair the children’s relationships with their younger half-sibling.
But nothing in the record suggests that terminating the mother’s rights will cut off
the relationships between the children and their half-sibling. The younger half-
sibling currently resides in the same home as these three children with the father
and his wife. The record establishes this is a good home for all four children. While
there may be some emotional difficulties that come with the mother having a
relationship with the half-sibling while not having a legal relationship with the other
three children, the benefits of termination to the three children overwhelmingly
outweigh that potential problem. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 224–25
(Iowa 2016) (finding termination of parental rights with respect to two children to
be in their best interests while the children continue to reside with their younger
half-sibling).
While the mother does not directly attack the juvenile court’s best-interests
determination in general, choosing instead to target the legal relationships
between the four siblings, we find it worthwhile to address the bases for such
determination, as our best-interests determination on our de novo review looks at
the entire picture. That review reveals that the mother’s contact with the children
has been minimal and sporadic. She admits she has visited and called them far
less than she should have, claiming she was too ashamed to see or talk to them.
She has made no effort to support them financially. She struggles with substance
abuse, admitting she last used methamphetamine only a few weeks before the
termination hearing. She also maintains a long-standing relationship with an
5
abusive partner—the father of the younger half-sibling—who also uses drugs.2
See In re J.R., No. 17-0556, 2017 WL 2684405, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 21,
2017) (“The threat to children posed by domestic violence in their home may serve
as the basis for terminating parental rights.”). The mother has used drugs while
caring for the half-sibling. In short, the mother’s unreliability, drug use, and
domestic issues have had a negative effect on the children, who are freshly hurt
by her failure to visit and communicate with them each time she reaches out and
who worry about her well-being. See B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232 (“Of importance
is the child’s emotional and psychological health . . . .”). Two of the children have
stopped calling her “mom”, demonstrating her lessening place of importance in
their lives. See Iowa Code § 600A.1(2); see also B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232 (“Of
importance is . . . the closeness of the parent-child bond.”). She has done nothing
to “affirmatively assume[] the duties of a parent.” Iowa Code § 600A.1(2).
In contrast, the father has provided a stable and loving home for the children
and has done so their whole lives. The father’s wife has proved to be a positive
presence in their lives and has stepped into a parental role for the children. She
is also eager to adopt them. See In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125, 131 (Iowa Ct.
2 The mother claimed that her only current contact with the abusive partner is
communication about their shared child. But the juvenile court noted that this
claimed development occurred only a few weeks prior to the termination hearing,
and the court was “unconvinced that their romantic relationship is actually over.”
We give this credibility finding considerable weight. See State v. Tague, 676
N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 2004) (“We give considerable deference to the trial court’s
findings regarding the credibility of the witnesses, but are not bound by them.”).
Giving due deference to the juvenile court’s credibility finding, we also are not
persuaded that the mother’s romantic relationship with her abusive partner is in
the past.
6
App. 2012) (noting a stepparent’s willingness to adopt as a favorable consideration
in assessing whether termination served the child’s best interest).
After our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that termination
of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. We affirm the
juvenile court’s ruling terminating the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.