IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.B. and T.L.B.-G., Minor Children, B.F.G., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-615 / 09-0939
Filed August 6, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.B. and T.L.B.-G.,
Minor Children,
B.F.G., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen
Kilnoski, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children.
AFFIRMED.
William F. McGinn of McGinn, McGinn, Springer & Noethe, Council Bluffs,
for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Dawn Landon,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Phil Caniglia, Council Bluffs, for mother.
Brian Rhoten, Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children. He
contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence. He also contends termination is not in the children’s best
interests. Finally, he contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunite him with his children. We review his claims de novo. In re N.V., 744
N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 2008).
The father’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 232.116(1)(a), (d), (e), (f), and (h) (2009).
We need only find
termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274,
276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
The father only makes an argument regarding
termination under section 232.116(1)(d).
The failure to make an argument
regarding termination under the remaining sections is deemed a waiver of the
issue. In re J.J.A., 580 N.W.2d 731, 740 (Iowa 1998). We affirm the termination
of his parental rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(a), (e), (f), and (h).
We also conclude termination is in the children’s best interests.
The
evidence presented at the termination hearing shows the father is unable to
safely parent the children at this time. A child should not be forced to endlessly
await the maturity of a natural parent. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa
2000). At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and
needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
That time is now.
The children, ages four and five, are each in foster care
placements with families who wish to adopt them.
After being placed with
3
different foster families and a relative placement since May 2007, a permanent
home is in their best interest. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006)
(“A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are now the primary
concerns when determining a child’s best interests.”) (Cady, J., concurring
specially).
Finally, the father contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunite him with the children. He does not state what services he requested that
would have better served to reunify them and accordingly has not preserved this
issue for our review. See In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App.
1994) (“A challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised in the course
of the child in need of assistance proceedings.”). Therefore, we affirm.
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.
