IN THE INTEREST OF D.H., Minor Child, T.J.H., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-729 / 09-1187
Filed September 17, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF D.H.,
Minor Child,
T.J.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William S.
Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Michael S. Fisher of Fisher Law Office, Oskaloosa, for appellant father.
Amanda Demichelis of Demichelis Law Firm, Chariton, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Robert Bozwell, County Attorney, and Richard Scott, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Jonathan Willier, Centerville, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
T.J.H. is the father and T.H. is the mother of D.H., born June 2007.1 D.H.
came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (Department) in
January 2008 after law enforcement received protective concerns that the mother
was at a local store and seemed confused and did not know her name. The
father was incarcerated at the time and unable to care for the child. Thereafter,
the mother absconded with the child because she was fearful D.H. would be
removed from her care. The Department then filed an application for temporary
removal.
On January 17, 2008, the State filed a petition asserting D.H. was a child
in need of assistance (CINA). The court granted the Department’s application for
removal. D.H. was placed in foster care.
On April 3, 2008, the juvenile court adjudicated D.H. a CINA. At that time,
the mother’s whereabouts were unknown and the father continued to be
incarcerated.
A dispositional hearing was held on May 15, 2008, and the
mother’s whereabouts were unknown and the father was still incarcerated.
A permanency hearing was held on September 25, 2008. The father had
been released from custody and attended the hearing; the mother’s whereabouts
were unknown. The juvenile court found that D.H. should remain in the custody
of the Department for foster care placement.
1
This appeal concerns only the father’s parental rights. The mother does not appeal
from the termination of her parental rights.
3
On March 19, 2009, the State filed a petition seeking termination of the
parents’ rights.
A hearing on the petition was held July 16, 2009.
At the
termination hearing, both parents consented, orally and in written form, to the
termination of their parental rights.
On July 23, 2009, the juvenile court filed its ruling terminating the father’s
parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(a) (2009) (parent consents to
termination), and (h) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home
for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home). The court
concluded termination of parental rights was in D.H.’s best interests.
The father now appeals.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698
N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2000). 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 is the best interests of the
children. In re A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
III. Discussion.
The father has only appealed the termination of his parental rights under
section 232.116(1)(a), asserting he did not voluntarily consent to the termination
of his parental rights. However, he does not challenge termination of his parental
rights under section 232.116(1)(h), the second ground found by the district court
in support of the termination of his parental rights, and we may thus affirm on that
4
ground. “When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the
sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm.” In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64
(Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The father’s failure to raise an issue regarding section
232.116(1)(h) means he has waived that issue on appeal. See Iowa R. App. P.
6.903(2)(g)(3) (2009) (“Failure to cite authority in support of an issue may be
deemed waiver of that issue.”). We therefore conclude the issue termination of
the father’s parental rights may be affirmed under section 232.116(1)(h).
IV. Conclusion.
Because we conclude the father failed to challenge termination of his
parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h) and he waived that issue on
appeal, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
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.
