IN THE INTEREST OF P.M.H., Minor Child, R.L.O, JR., Father Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-449 / 07-0588
Filed July 25, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF P.M.H., Minor Child,
R.L.O, JR., Father
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights
to one child. AFFIRMED.
Sara L. Smith of Nidey, Peterson, Erdahl & Tindal, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids,
for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Troy Powell, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Henry Keyes of Keyes Law Offices, Cedar Rapids, for mother.
Melissa Petersen, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
PER CURIAM
Richard appeals from a March 2007 juvenile court order terminating his
parental rights to his daughter, Paige, who was five years and eight months of
age at the time of a February 2007 termination of parental rights hearing. The
order also terminated the parental rights of Paige’s mother to Paige and two
older children and terminated the parental rights of the fathers of each of the two
older children, and neither Paige’s mother nor either of the other two fathers have
appealed. We affirm.
The juvenile court terminated Richard’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(b) (2007) (abandonment), 232.116(1)(e) (child
adjudicated a child in need of assistance, child removed from parents’ physical
custody at least six consecutive months, parent has not maintained significant
and meaningful contact during previous six months and has made no reasonable
efforts to resume care of child), and 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, adjudicated
a child in need of assistance, removed from parents’ physical custody twelve of
last eighteen months, cannot be returned at present time). Richard appeals.
We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we
are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court’s findings of
fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. The
primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of
the child. To support the termination of parental rights, the State
must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section
232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).
Richard claims he did not abandon Paige. This claim implicates only the
grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(b). Richard does not claim the
State did not prove the grounds for termination under either or both of sections
3
232.116(1)(e) and 232.116(1)(f), and we may affirm on those grounds. See Iowa
R. App. P. 6.14(1)(c) (“Failure in the brief to state . . . an issue may be deemed
waiver of that issue.”); In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999)
(“When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory
ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited
by the juvenile court to affirm.”).
Richard also claims that termination of his parental rights is not in Paige’s
best interest. Even if statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to
terminate must still be in the best interest of the child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d
398, 400 (Iowa 1994). Although Richard did meet some of the requirements of
the case plans and court orders, we find the overwhelming evidence shows that
termination of his parental rights is in Paige’s best interest.
Although Richard and Paige’s mother lived together for two to three years,
they were never married and they finally separated before Paige’s second
birthday. Richard has a history of substance abuse. In June 2006 the juvenile
court ordered him to participate in sweat patch testing. Despite having three
appointments made for him to do so, Richard never did participate.
Richard has a lengthy and varied history of criminal convictions, including
felony operating while intoxicated. Some time prior to June 2006 he was granted
parole, but in June 2006 he stopped reporting to his parole officer as required.
He was subsequently arrested and from November 2006 to January 2007 was
incarcerated as a result of parole violations.
In May 2006 Richard stopped visiting Paige. He changed residences at
times during the juvenile court proceedings in this case, and at times failed or
4
refused to provide the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) with new
addresses or changed telephone numbers. Richard did not contact the DHS
every thirty days as required.
Richard did not attend scheduled juvenile court hearings in June, October,
and November 2006.
In November 2006 he was the subject of a founded
assessment of child abuse or neglect, for denial of critical care by failing to
provide proper supervision of this then girlfriend’s child.
At the time of the
termination hearing Richard was living and working in Virginia.
He
acknowledged it would be at least six weeks, and perhaps longer, before he
might be able to have physical custody of Paige.
Paige has been removed from her parents since December 2005. She
suffers from feelings of abandonment. Paige has been diagnosed as having
“Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct.” She
participates in counseling for her emotional problems. Paige needs permanency,
in a home and with a family where she can feel wanted, safe, and secure, and
needs it now, not at some future time. Termination is necessary and appropriate
to allow Paige the opportunity to acquire the stability, security, and permanence
she needs and deserves. We affirm the juvenile court finding that termination of
Richard’s parental rights is in Paige’s best interest.
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.
