IN THE INTEREST OF B.W., Minor Child, G.W., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-358 / 09-0454
Filed May 29, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF B.W.,
Minor Child,
G.W., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District
Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child.
AFFIRMED.
Angela Y. Gruber-Gardner, Johnston, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon E. Anderson,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee, State.
Robb Goedicke of Burdette Law Firm, Clive, for mother.
Michelle Saveraid of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child.
He asserts the juvenile court erred in failing to grant him an additional six months
to work toward reunification. He also contends there is not sufficient evidence to
support the termination of his parental rights. We affirm.
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698
N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence. In re T.P., 757 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa Ct. App.
2008). Evidence is clear and convincing when it leaves no serious or substantial
doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from it. In re D.D., 653
N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). Our primary concern in termination cases is the
best interests of the child. In re A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
Gerald is the father of B.W., born in April 2007. B.W. resided with his
mother, his father, and an older half-brother, J.L., born May 2004, until the family
came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in early
September 2007. At that time, the mother1 left B.W. and J.L. unattended in an
unlocked hot car while she went into the mall. This incident resulted in a founded
abuse report and child endangerment charges against the mother, but did not
result in a petition being filed with the juvenile court. Gerald and the children’s
mother separated. The mother and her two children moved in with her maternal
great aunt and her husband later in September 2007. Voluntary services were
offered to the family, and Gerald received supervised visits in November and
December 2007 and January 2008. Gerald’s paternity was placed in doubt in
1
The mother, A.B. a/k/a A.L., has not appealed the termination of her parental rights.
3
January 2008 and Gerald was not allowed to visit B.W. until paternity was
established.
In May 2008, the mother took B.W. to daycare and then left the state
without making plans for his care. She remained out of state until she returned in
October 2008. The children were placed with the mother’s great aunt and her
husband, with whom they had been living. A petition alleging B.W. was a child in
need of assistance (CINA) was filed May 14, 2008. Paternity testing for Gerald
was ordered May 21, 2008. B.W. was adjudicated CINA June 3, 2008.
Gerald began receiving weekly one-hour supervised visits with B.W. June
10, 2008.
Those visits were extended in length and, at the time of the
termination hearing in January 2009, the DHS child protective worker assigned to
this family, Michelle DeLong, reported Gerald is able to parent B.W. for short
times on his own. Gerald engaged actively in services from June 2008 until the
termination trial in January 2009.
In October 2008, Gerald’s time with B.W. was expanded to include
Saturday overnights with Gerald’s sister, her husband, and the four children in
their home. Gerald relied on his sister and brother-in-law for transportation, since
he does not have a driver’s license. Gerald’s family became actively involved in
supporting his efforts to gain custody of B.W. On Christmas Eve day 2008,
Gerald worked with his brother-in-law, and Gerald’s sister was left to care for
B.W. As a result, Gerald and his sister argued, and Gerald no longer permitted
his sister to be involved with his life or that of B.W. Gerald’s sister then reported
that she, and not Gerald, had been parenting B.W. during the weekends.
4
Gerald’s weekends with B.W. ended, although he continued to have
professionally supervised time with B.W. during the week.
Gerald was ordered to complete a psychosocial evaluation and to
participate in anger management courses and individual therapy. On July 25,
2008, Gerald began seeing an individual counselor to deal with issues of anger
management, low frustration tolerance, and impulse control. He has made some
progress in these areas. However, Gerald continues to have difficulty accepting
feedback and when he is frustrated or angry, he is unable to focus on B.W.’s
needs. Gerald has difficulty regaining his composure after an angry outburst,
and reportedly creates at these times a “scary environment for kids.” The older
child expressed such fear of Gerald that the professionals involved with the
family avoided contact between that child and Gerald. Even when supervised,
and after many months of services, Gerald’s anger is not adequately controlled,
and he fails to recognize its effect on B.W. Additional services are required
before Gerald could adequately and safely parent B.W.
B.W. and his older half-brother have a very close bond with each other
and with their caretakers, with whom they had lived for the sixteen months before
the termination trial. B.W. was twenty-one months old at the time of trial and
developmentally delayed. He is described as an “emotionally fragile” child and
requires monitoring for growth and development.
In an extensive opinion detailing the history of this family’s involvement
with DHS, the juvenile court concluded B.W. could not be returned to Gerald’s
care at this time. The court referenced the opinion of all of the professionals
involved that Gerald could not assume the care of B.W. at the time of trial. The
5
court concluded that “[t]here is no indication that within a reasonable period of
time he will be able to change his behavior patterns formed over a lifetime.” The
court also concluded granting additional time would not be in B.W.’s best
interests. The court carefully weighed the request of the guardian ad litem and
Gerald for an additional six months and found no reasonable likelihood that
Gerald would be able to provide a safe home for B.W. after an additional six
months of therapy. Gerald’s parental rights to B.W. were terminated pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2009) (child under three, adjudicated CINA,
removed from custody for six months, clear and convincing evidence that child
cannot be returned at this time). We concur.
As noted above, our primary concern in a termination proceeding is the
best interests of the child. In re A.S., 743 N.W.2d at 867. Those best interests
are to be determined by looking at the child’s long-range as well as immediate
interests. We are to consider what the future likely holds for the child if that child
is returned to his or her parents. Insight for that determination is to be gained
from evidence of the parent’s past performance, for that performance may be
indicative of the quality of the future care that the parent is capable of providing.
In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 1990); In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743,
745 (Iowa 1981). Case history records are entitled to much probative force when
a parent’s record is being examined. Harter v. State, 260 Iowa 605, 608-09, 149
N.W.2d 827, 829 (1967). From our de novo review of the record, we conclude
that the juvenile court correctly determined additional time would not be effective
6
and that termination was in B.W.’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.
