In the Interest of J.S., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0247
Filed April 23, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF J.S.,
Minor Child,

J.S., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Nancy L. Pietz, Des Moines, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Megil D. Patterson, Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and guardian

ad litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and

Sandy, JJ.
2

BULLER, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one of his children.

He challenges the grounds for termination, claims termination was not in the child’s

best interests, and urges an exception to termination. We affirm.

Background Facts and Proceedings. Pursuant to a 2017 Arizona

custody order, the father had physical care of the child, born in 2013. The mother

lived in Iowa. Around 2018, the father and child, as well as the father’s older child,

moved to Iowa. In October 2022, the older child reported drug paraphernalia in

the home and found a pipe in her jacket at school. The school reported this to the

Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). And the father admitted

to methamphetamine use the weekend before at a party and displayed paranoid

thoughts during interactions with HHS. Both children were removed from the

father’s care; the child at issue here was placed in the mother’s custody, and the

older half-sibling was placed with a relative. The father’s rights as to the older

sibling are not at issue in this appeal.

In November, the father completed a substance-abuse evaluation, which

recommended outpatient treatment and mental-health therapy. At first, he

attended therapy and treatment. But then he tested positive for methamphetamine

in January 2023. A few months later, the father was hospitalized and reportedly

had methamphetamine in his system; once discharged, his engagement with

social workers decreased, he stopped attending substance-abuse treatment and

therapy, and he did not complete requested drug tests. At the few visits they had,

the father would “nod[] off” or act inappropriately around the child—like calling him

“brainwashed.” By late summer, the father was largely disengaged from the child
3

and HHS, and the only encounter with the child ended with police intervention. In

late spring 2024, the father texted the mother to ask for a visit; a visit in June was

the last time he saw the child that calendar year. The father also reached out to

HHS one time, but HHS was unable to reach him in response. The father tried to

call the child on the child’s birthday and Christmas, but the child did not want to

talk to him.

The permanency goal eventually was changed from reunification to transfer

of sole physical custody to the mother. Because the custodial order was from a

different state and the father did not cooperate, efforts to transfer custody by bridge

order were unsuccessful. The permanency recommendation was changed to

termination of the father’s rights.

At the termination trial, the father blamed the termination proceedings on

“bad things that the State does.” He claimed he had not used illegal substances

and was only asked three times to drug test, with the first one “falsely positive.”

He did not think he had any ongoing requirements because everything “was done

before the first court date.” He also seemed confused about visitation supervision

and did not seem to think he bore any responsibility for arranging visits. He

claimed to be in online therapy but could not name the program and gave

conflicting answers about what participation looked like. When asked what

outcome he wanted at the termination trial, the father threatened to file kidnapping

charges against the mother and was inconsistent or incoherent on whether he

wanted his rights terminated. He also seemed to be convinced a bridge order was

already in place, giving custody to the mother.
4

The State, HHS, the mother, and the child’s guardian ad litem all

recommended termination of the father’s parental rights. The juvenile court

terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f),

and (l) (2024). The father appeals, and we review de novo. See In re W.M., 957

N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).

Statutory Elements. Although the father challenges the statutory elements

under all three grounds, we need find only one supported by the record to affirm.

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

paragraph (e), which requires the court find:

(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents
have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child
during the previous six consecutive months and have made no
reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given
the opportunity to do so. For the purposes of this subparagraph,
“significant and meaningful contact” includes but is not limited to the
affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by
the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to
financial obligations, requires continued interest in the child, a
genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case
permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain communication with
the child, and requires that the parents establish and maintain a
place of importance in the child’s life.

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e). The father challenges the final element, asserting

brief visitation and phone calls were enough to maintain contact, arguing he “was

not given the opportunity to resume care” of the child, and complaining the mother

did not “foster the relationship” between father and child.

We agree with the juvenile court that this ground for termination was proven.

At the time of the termination trial, the father had not seen the child for more than
5

six months and had made no request of the mother to do so. While he attempted

birthday and Christmas phone calls, the child did not want to speak with him. The

father disengaged from all treatment in mid-2023 and made no effort to engage

with HHS or comply with any case plan recommendations in the eighteen months

between then and the termination trial. We find clear and convincing evidence that

the father has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child and

made no efforts to resume care of the child, satisfying this statutory ground for

termination.

Best Interests. The father also claims termination is not in the child’s best

interests, urging there was no evidence the mother’s husband would adopt the

child and the child’s therapist did not testify that it was in the child’s best interests.

When we consider the best-interests prong of our termination framework, we “give

primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the

long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and

emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The juvenile

court noted the ongoing safety concerns, the father’s lack of participation in

services demonstrating “an inability or unwillingness to make necessary changes

to have his child placed in his care,” and the child’s need for a committed and

supportive parent. Considering all the father’s behaviors and lack of effort to

establish himself as a safe caregiver for the child, coupled with his insistence the

child should be returned to him anyway, we agree termination of his parental rights

is in the child’s best interests. And, of course, the State was not required to put on

evidence the mother’s new husband wished to adopt or that the therapist had

formed an opinion as to this element of the termination framework.
6

Permissive Exception. Finally, the father urges the court need not

terminate his parental rights because the mother has legal custody, so the juvenile

court should enter a bridge order to resolve the custody dispute. See id.

§ 232.116(3)(a). The father had the burden to establish the exception to

termination. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). Early in 2024, the

juvenile court attempted a permanency goal of “a modification of custody order” to

“transfer . . . sole physical custody to [the] mother.” But no progress was made on

modifying the Arizona custodial order. And the mother and the child (then eleven

years old) supported termination of the father’s parental rights. Cf. Iowa Code

§ 232.116(3)(b) (establishing an exception to termination where the child is over

ten years old and objects, recognizing a child’s preference can be taken into

consideration in certain instances). The father did not carry his burden to establish

an exception to termination. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 476.

AFFIRMED.