IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.Z., Minor Child, E.M.H., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-667 / 09-0989
Filed August 19, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.Z.,
Minor Child,
E.M.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas Strake,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Matthew L. Noel of Blair & Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and Jean A. Becker, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Colista Schmitt of Reynolds & Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.J.
A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his child. He
contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence.
He also seeks an extension of time to continue
reunification efforts. We review his claim de novo. In re N.V., 744 N.W.2d 634,
636 (Iowa 2008).
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) (2009).
Under this section, termination is appropriate
where the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence the following:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the
child's parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or
for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has
been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be
returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section
232.102 at the present time.
The father does not dispute the first three elements have been proved, but
argues there is insufficient evidence the child cannot be returned to his care.
This infant was removed at birth and has remained in the care of the
maternal grandmother, who indicates she is willing to adopt her. She was nine
months old when the termination order was entered.
The father has mental health issues that are not being addressed. He
stopped taking the prescribed medication for these issues and at the termination
3
hearing was unable to recall his doctor’s name. At the hearing, he testified he
was about to move into an efficiency, one-bedroom apartment where he would
live with the child and the mother, whose parental rights were also terminated. 1
The father has no concerns about the mother’s ability to care for the child. He
continued to choose a relationship with the mother, even when told it could
jeopardize his ability to regain custody of his the child.
The father works ten to twelve hours per week, earning approximately
seven dollars per hour. He has two other children for whom he does not provide
support. He is to pay fifteen dollars per month in support for one of the children,
which he has failed to do since the child’s birth. The only support the father has
provided for L.Z. has been to buy her diapers three times since her birth.
The father has a problem with managing his anger.
As a result, he
refused to continue with supervised visits with the child at the end of April,
claiming, “I just don’t like being in the same room with [the worker]” who “plays on
that fricking laptop the whole time and he makes up a lie about us.” He stated
that “somebody should blow up DHS.”
The evidence demonstrates the father does not have the skills necessary
to provide basic parenting for the child. The situation continues to exist despite
the assistance given the father to remedy his deficiencies. The father asks for
more 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
1
The mother does not appeal.
4
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).
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
That time is now.
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.
