IN THE INTEREST OF F.L.H., Minor Child, M.A.H., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-250 / 07-0339
Filed May 9, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF F.L.H.,
Minor Child,
M.A.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Louisa County, Mark Kruse, District
Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son.
AFFIRMED.
Esther J. Dean, Muscatine, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, David L. Matthews, County Attorney, and Korie Shippee,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Mark Neary, Muscatine, for appellee mother.
Arlen Poock, Muscatine, for the minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Mark appeals the termination of his parental rights to F.L.H., born in 2006.
He contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support
termination under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g) (2005) (requiring proof of
several elements including proof that parents lack “the ability or willingness to
respond to services which would correct the situation” and “an additional period
of rehabilitation would not correct the situation”) and (h) (requiring proof of
several elements including proof that the child could not be returned to the
parent’s custody). He also contends termination was not necessary because the
child was placed with a relative. Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a).
We may affirm a termination decision if there is clear and convincing
evidence to support any of the grounds cited by the district court. In re S.R., 600
N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Reviewing the record de novo, we are
persuaded that the child could not have been returned to Mark’s custody. Mark
was incarcerated throughout F.L.H.’s young life. An Iowa Department of Human
Services social worker testified that his discharge date was March 2010.
Although Mark’s attorney stated Mark would complete substance abuse
treatment by May 25, 2007, and would “be eligible for parole and release” at that
time, this information could not be verified with his prison counselor, as Mark did
not sign a release of information. In any event, Mark was clearly unavailable to
assume custody of the child at the time of the termination hearing or in the
imminent future.
As for Mark’s contention that termination should have been deferred
based on the child’s placement with a relative, we note that almost a year had
3
elapsed since F.L.H.’s birth and, during that period, Mark had no contact with the
child.
Additionally, the department’s social worker testified that F.L.H was
“developmentally on target” despite having been born with amphetamines in his
system. She also noted that he appeared “to be a happy child.” We conclude
termination of Mark’s parental rights to F.L.H. was in the child’s best interests.
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.
