In the Interest of B.W., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1360
Filed October 30, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF B.W.,
Minor Child,

K.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, Judge.

A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his minor child.

AFFIRMED.

Jean Capdevila, Davenport, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan & Rolfes, Clinton, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.
2

AHLERS, Judge.

The juvenile court terminated a mother and father’s parental rights to their

child, born in 2022. Only the father appeals.

Review of orders terminating parental rights follows the familiar three-step

process of determining whether the State established a statutory ground for

termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2024), whether termination is in

the child’s best interests as assessed using the framework spelled out in

section 232.116(2), and whether a permissive exception to termination provided

for in section 232.116(3) should be applied. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa

2021). Our review is de novo. In re Z.K., 973 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022).

While our review follows a three-step process, we do not address any steps

not challenged on appeal. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). The father

challenges only the first step—whether the State established a statutory ground

for termination—so we limit our discussion to that issue.1

The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), (i), and (l). Because the juvenile court found

multiple grounds for termination, we may affirm on any of those grounds supported

by the record. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We focus on

paragraph (h), which permits termination upon clear and convincing proof that

1 Due to the limited substantive arguments following the single issue heading
included in the father’s petition on appeal, it is not clear what issue(s) the father
asks us to address. We have done our best to discern the issues raised and have
concluded that the father is only challenging the statutory grounds for termination.
If the father intended to raise any other issues, we find those issues waived due to
failure to properly identify and provide substantive arguments in support of them.
See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3).
3

(1) the child is three years of age or younger; (2) the child has been adjudicated a

child in need of assistance; (3) the child has been removed from the physical

custody of the parents for at least six of the last twelve months; and (4) the child

cannot be returned to the custody of the parent. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). While

not identified by subparagraph number, we conclude the substance of the father’s

challenge is focused on the fourth element.

Following our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that the child

could not be placed in the father’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.

See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (holding that “at the present

time” as referenced in section 232.116(1)(h) means at the time of the termination

hearing). While the father has several parenting deficiencies that support a finding

that the child could not be placed in his custody at the time of the termination

hearing, we focus on the most critical one—the father’s inability to provide for the

child’s significant health needs.

The child has a myriad of health issues, starting from birth, when she tested

positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC (the main psychoactive

component of marijuana), requiring her to be placed in the neonatal intensive care

unit. The child has since been diagnosed with global developmental delay.

Although over two years old at the time of the termination hearing, she cannot walk

or talk, has difficulty swallowing, and has significant allergies. The allergies are

severe enough to require her caretakers to always have on hand a medical device

to inject the child with epinephrine to counteract life-threatening allergic reactions.

As a result of these health issues, the child sees multiple specialists and receives

medical services on a regular basis.
4

Even though attending these medical visits would provide the father with

the knowledge necessary to care for his young daughter, he failed to participate in

and attend a substantial number of the visits. When service providers attempted

to incorporate some of the child’s medical appointments into the father’s visitation

time, the father failed to see it as an opportunity to improve his parenting by

learning how to care for his daughter’s medical needs. Instead, he exhibited

frustration with the service providers for cutting into his visitation time, and he even

terminated one of the visits early by storming off.

The father’s failure to learn to adequately address his daughter’s significant

medical issues prevents him from being a safe placement option. As the State

proved that the child could not be placed safely in the father’s custody at the time

of the termination hearing, the State met its burden of proving a ground for

termination by clear and convincing evidence under section 232.116(1)(h). As that

is the only challenge raised by the father, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision to

terminate the father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.