IN THE INTEREST OF D.P. and L.P., Minor Children, B.G.P., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-244 / 09-0237
Filed April 8, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF D.P. and L.P.,
Minor Children,
B.G.P., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Gregg R.
Rosenbladt, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Cynthia Foos, Mason City, for appellant.
Brian D. Jones of Siegrist & Jones, P.C., Britt, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Karen Salic, County Attorney, for appellee State.
Theodore Hovda, Garner, for minor children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Doyle, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Brad appeals the district court’s order terminating his parental rights to his
five-year-old daughter, D.P., pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and
(f) (2007); and his two-year-daughter, L.P., pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(d)
and (h). He argues the court erred in limiting his contacts with his daughters. He
further contends the court erred in denying his motions for recusal.
We review termination of parental rights de novo. In re Z.H., 740 N.W.2d
648, 650-51 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). In this case, we find clear and convincing
evidence supports termination of Brad’s parental rights. Reasonable efforts were
made towards reunification, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in
limiting Brad’s contacts with D.P. and L.P. due to the evidence of Brad’s sexual
and physical abuse of the children.
Moreover, Brad fails to indicate that he
requested or otherwise challenged the adequacy of reunification services prior to
this appeal. In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (finding a
parent’s challenge to services by the state should be made when they are
offered, not when termination of parental rights is sought after services have
failed to remedy a parent’s deficiencies).
We review the court’s denial of Brad’s motions for recusal for abuse of
discretion. State v. Farni, 325 N.W.2d 107, 110 (Iowa 1982). The moving party
has the burden to show actual prejudice before a recusal is required. In re C.W.,
522 N.W.2d 113, 117 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (noting an appearance of impropriety
is not sufficient to merit recusal). Brad has failed to show actual prejudice, and
we therefore conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brad’s
motions for recusal.
3
By the time of the termination hearing, Brad had been removed from the
home and prohibited from seeing the children for over sixteen months due to his
sexual abuse of both children and physical abuse of D.P.
Brad has many
unresolved issues, and the children have suffered severe trauma while in his
care.
Grounds for termination have been proved by clear and convincing
evidence, and termination of Brad’s parental rights is in D.P.’s and L.P.’s best
interests. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006)
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.
