In the Interest of D.P., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1411
Filed February 3, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF D.P.,
Minor Child,
A.P., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne
Mefford, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Misty White, Sigourney, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Denise McKelvie Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in
2009.1 He contends (1) the district court should have afforded him six additional
months to work toward reunification and (2) termination was not in the child’s best
interests.
The department of human services learned that the child’s step-father was
a registered sex offender and he physically assaulted the child. The child
described “a lot of physical discipline” in the home, attempts by the step-father “to
touch her,” and “being confined/locked in her bedroom.”
The department implemented a safety plan under which the mother was to
encourage the step-father to leave the home. The mother instead asked to have
the child removed from her care. The child’s father was not a viable placement
option because he lived in a home for adults with disabilities that did not permit
children. The child was placed in foster care, where she remained throughout the
proceedings.
The district court adjudicated the child in need of assistance and eventually
terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020). That provision requires proof of several
elements, including proof the child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody. The
father does not challenge the evidence supporting the ground for termination. As
noted, he argues the district court should have granted him “an additional six
months to show that he could resume custody and care of his child.” See In re
1The court also terminated the mother’s parental rights to the child, and she does
not appeal.
3
L.H., 949 N.W.2d 268, 272 (Iowa 2020) (stating a court may afford a parent an
additional six months to work toward reunification) (citing Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b)). The district court acknowledged the father’s request for
additional time but declined to grant the request. On our de novo review, we agree
with the court’s decision.
At the time of the termination hearing, the father remained in the same
structured setting that disallowed children. According to the department’s case
manager, he was told “from the very beginning” that his housing situation was a
barrier to reunification. Although the father made efforts to obtain independent
housing, testified that he was “moving up very quickly on a couple of” housing lists,
and expressed a belief that with “just . . . a little more time” he would be able to
secure an apartment, he acknowledged he could not “say for certain” how long it
would take.
The case manager testified the father’s health conditions also posed an
impediment to reunification. In combination with his housing situation, she did not
“feel like an additional six months would change that situation.” The child’s foster
mother similarly testified, “I don’t feel it is in [the child’s] best interest to go six more
months not knowing what’s going to happen in her life. That’s not fair to her.”
We recognize the department had yet to secure an adoptive placement,
raising doubts about its stated intent to move to permanency immediately. That
said, we agree the prospect of reunification with the father within six months was
tenuous. As the child’s guardian ad litem stated, “[The father] is lacking the
parental skills; the life skills; the financial skills; the transportation skills; and just
the adulting skills, in general, to be able to take care of himself, let alone a pre-
4
teen and teenage daughter on his own. I just do not see that changing in the next
six months.” We conclude the district court appropriately declined to grant the
father’s request to defer termination of his parental rights for six months.
Termination must also serve the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). The guardian ad litem agreed the father and child “love[d] each
other” and were “bonded to one another.” But, as noted, she did not believe the
father possessed the “tools and skills” to care for a teenage child. The father
acknowledged he was “still wrestling with” whether reunification was in the child’s
best interests. While he made commendable strides in stabilizing his life and he
expressed a willingness to place his child’s welfare first, we agree with the district
court that termination was in the child’s best interests.
We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.