IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.S., Minor Child, T.A.S., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-673 / 09-1037
Filed September 2, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.S.,
Minor Child,
T.A.S., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Lucy J.
Gamon, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, born
in 2004. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Powell of Tindal Law Office, Washington, for appellant father.
Kathryn Salazar, Washington, for appellee mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Barbara Edmondson, County Attorney.
Katherine Lujan of Lloyd, McConnell, Davis & Lujan, L.L.P., Washington,
for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mansfield, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
Tom appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, born in
2004. He argues: (1) “the court’s determination that the [child] could not be
returned to [his] care, is not supported by clear and convincing evidence,” and (2)
“the court’s decision to terminate [his] parental rights is not in the best interest of
the child.”
I.
The district court determined that the child could not be returned to Tom’s
custody.
See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) (2007) (requiring proof of several
elements, including proof that child could not be returned to parent’s custody).
On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence to support this
determination.
Tom was imprisoned for sexually abusing another daughter.
Prior to
discharging his sentence, he did not complete a treatment program for sexual
offenders. While he testified that scheduling difficulties at the prison prevented
him from doing so, a counselor with the Mount Pleasant Correctional Facility
reported that he neglected to sign up for a group session and needed “continued
treatment” following his discharge.
In 2006, the Department of Human Services learned that Tom was living
in the same home as A.S. and had unsupervised time with the child.
The
department issued a founded child abuse report against Tom as well as the
child’s mother for permitting Tom to move into the home.
Mother and child
moved out of the home and the child remained in her mother’s care.
Tom subsequently underwent an evaluation, which resulted in a
recommendation that he have “no unsupervised contact with his minor daughter.”
3
Based on this recommendation, the department only allowed him to have
supervised visits with A.S.
Tom was also ordered to participate in sex offender counseling.
He
regularly attended these sessions until February 2008. At that time, he decided
to stop participating.
Around the time that Tom curtailed his therapy sessions, he also had an
unsupervised visit with the child. The department obtained an order removing
the child from her mother’s care and placing her in foster care.
The child
remained in foster care through the remaining proceedings.
Tom exercised supervised visits for approximately six months. At that
point, the district court suspended the visits based on Tom’s noncompliance with
sex-offender treatment.
The case proceeded to a termination hearing at which a department case
manager summarized the agency’s history with the family. When asked whether
the child could be returned to Tom’s custody, she testified:
Tom is a huge risk to [the child]. She’s a young child. She
completely relies on her caregivers to ensure that she’s going to be
safe and cared for by people who are safe.
Tom is a registered sex offender. His victim was [the child’s]
half sibling, so Tom’s biological daughter, and he has never
completed any sort of sex offender treatment program.
The psychotherapist who provided sex offender counseling also testified.
She stated that Tom’s conceded attraction to “young children and pre-pubescent
girls” was not diminished or eliminated, as Tom did not complete treatment with
her.
4
Tom faults the district court’s reliance on this psychotherapist’s testimony,
as his attorney successfully impugned her recollection of events surrounding a
polygraph test. Specifically, the therapist initially testified that Tom did not take a
polygraph test and only changed her testimony after the attorney furnished ironclad evidence that he did.
The district court addressed this discrepancy in the termination ruling,
noting that the psychotherapist was “in error” on this point.
The court
nonetheless refused to discount her testimony that Tom was at a high risk of
reoffending. The balance of the record supports her opinion.
Tom also suggests that the department’s numerous expectations were
difficult to accommodate. He notes that the department insisted he work for at
least forty hours per week yet required him to attend out-of-town counseling
sessions during work hours without providing transportation assistance.
We agree that the department did not provide transportation assistance
despite the case manager’s knowledge that Tom’s vehicle was not reliable. 1
There is also no evidence that the therapy sessions were scheduled around
Tom’s work hours. Notwithstanding this record, Tom’s failure to ask for help and
his unilateral decision to terminate counseling without informing the department
lead us to conclude that reversal is not mandated.
II.
The ultimate consideration in a termination action is the child’s best
interests. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). On this issue, we fully
concur with the district court’s determination that “[t]he risk of bodily and
1
While the department’s case manager testified that the sessions were moved to the
town in which Tom lived and worked, the psychotherapist stated that most of the visits
took place in a neighboring city.
5
psychological harm to this young child at the hands of her father is simply too
great, and overwhelms any other benefit that she might derive from maintaining a
relationship with her father.”
We affirm the termination of Tom’s parental rights to his daughter, born in
2004.
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.
