IN THE INTEREST OF T.A.H., Minor Child, S.L.D., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-749 / 08-1277
Filed October 1, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF T.A.H.,
Minor Child,
S.L.D., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, James A. McGlynn,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Joel Baxter of Beverly Wild Law Office, P.C., Guthrie Center, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John Werden, Jr., County Attorney, and Tina Meth-Farrington,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Patrick Hall of Eich Law Firm, Carroll, for mother.
Dee Ann Wunschel of Wunschel Law Firm, Carroll, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Potterfield, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
The father of a female child born in May of 2006 has filed a petition on
appeal challenging a July 23, 2008 order terminating his parental rights to the
child. The State had also sought termination of the mother’s parental rights. The
juvenile court denied the petition concerning the mother, finding among other
things, that the Iowa Department of Human Services, after determining a
termination petition would be filed, had discontinued providing parenting services
when a goal of a permanency order yet in place continued to be reunification with
the mother.1
The father makes two challenges to the termination of his rights. First he
contends that the court failed to consider how the termination of his rights would
bear on the best interest of the child financially, and second he contends there
was not clear and convincing evidence that termination of his rights was in the
child’s best interest.
The State responds that the father has not specifically
challenged any of the statutory grounds found for termination and that
termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.
SCOPE OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE AUTHORITES. We review de
novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002). The
parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected.
Quilloin v. Walcott, 434
U.S. 246, 255, 98 S. Ct. 549, 554, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 519 (1978); Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 35 (1972). The
State has the right to terminate the legal relationship between a parent and a
1
No appeal is taken from this finding.
3
child, but the Constitution limits its power to do so. Quilloin, 434 U.S. at 255, 98
S. Ct. at 554, 54 L. Ed. 2d at 519; see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43
S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 1045 (1923); In re T.R., 460 N.W.2d 873, 875
(Iowa Ct. App. 1990). The State has the burden of proving the grounds for
termination by clear and convincing evidence. Iowa Code § 232.96(2) (2007); In
re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). “The issue of whether
or not to legally sever the biological ties between parent and child is an issue of
grave importance with serious repercussions to the child as well as the biological
parents.”
Id.
The goals of child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings are to
improve parenting skills and to maintain the parent-child relationship. Id. An
underlying issue in a termination action is whether the parent is beyond help, but
a parent does not have an unlimited amount of time in which to correct his or her
deficiencies. Id.; see In re D.J.R., 454 N.W.2d 838, 845 (Iowa 1990).
BACKGROUND.
This child, together with three other siblings or half
siblings, was removed from the mother’s care after an emergency removal order
was issued in late October of 2006. The father has never had custody and has
only seen the child twice.
He currently is incarcerated in the Clarinda
Correctional Facility, having been committed there in September of 2007.
Convicted of Willful Injury Causing Serious Injury, his sentence will be completed
in June of 2012, but he testified he might get an earlier release. He was in prison
in California some years earlier and has spent jail time primarily as a result of
alcohol-related offenses. He testified that prior problems he has had stem from
his alcoholism and drug usage, he feels programs he has participated in since
being incarcerated have changed his life and attitudes, and he has learned a lot
4
including about raising children. He was of the opinion that when released he
would be ready to assist his daughter, noting that he has a fiancée who is a
nurse. He testified that he believes he has fifteen children aged three months to
twenty-nine years. He says he has contact with some of them, he raised four of
them, and is hopeful he will get them back when he is released. There is no
evidence he has any means to support the child at issue in this appeal.
ANALYSIS.
The father’s parental rights were terminated under Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), & (h) (2007). As the State correctly points out,
the father does not contend these grounds are not supported by clear and
convincing evidence. Failure in a brief to state, argue, or cite authority in support
an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue. In re Marriage of Stickle, 408
N.W.2d 778, 772 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987). We do, however, review to assure that
there is clear and convincing evidence supporting one or more of the grounds for
termination found by the juvenile court and find that one or more of the grounds
are so supported. When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more
than one statutory ground we need find evidence to terminate on only one of the
statutory grounds cited by the juvenile court in order to affirm. In re S.R., 600
N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
We also find there is clear and convincing evidence termination of the
father’s rights is in the child’s best interest. The father has never provided any
custodial, financial, or emotional support to this child.
We recognize that in
affirming the termination we are cutting off his responsibility for financial support
to the child and if the mother is successful in parenting the child she would not
have his financial support. However, there is little or no evidence to support a
5
finding that the father would be in a financial position to provide financial support
for the child in the immediate future. Nor do we find any evidence supporting his
testimony that he believes he could parent the child in the future. He has not
requested visits with the child, nor did he request services prior to his
incarceration. We recognize he is receiving services while incarcerated but there
is no evidence he will be available for the child in the immediate future. We
affirm the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
