In the Interest of J.S., Minor Child

Citation: Not availableDocket: 22-0028

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; July 20, 2022; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to terminate the father's parental rights to his son, J.S., based on findings of abandonment and failure to contribute under Iowa Code section 600A.8. The parents divorced in May 2017, with the mother awarded physical care and the father granted visitation rights. Initially, the father regularly exercised his visitation, but his attendance deteriorated significantly after about eighteen months, culminating in no visits from late July 2019 until December 2019. Despite the mother’s continued updates about J.S.’s well-being, the father only requested to see J.S. once in March 2020, which the mother denied due to COVID-19 concerns. Following this lack of contact, the mother filed a termination petition in June 2021. Testimonies during the trial included the mother's current husband, who expressed a desire to adopt J.S., and J.S.’s kindergarten teacher, who noted J.S.’s positive development and his acknowledgment of the father’s absence, indicating that J.S. considers his stepfather as his dad.

J.S. attended four therapy sessions prior to the termination trial, recommended by the guardian ad litem (GAL). The therapist noted J.S. was thriving at home and school, displaying no behavioral issues, and described him as a "talkative and active little kid." When discussing his father, J.S. showed little emotion, treating it as a factual part of his past rather than a current concern. J.S. drew a family picture featuring himself, his mother, and J.P., with whom he appeared to have a positive and affectionate relationship. The therapist opined that terminating the father's rights would not harm J.S., given the child's limited contact with his father—only twice in over two years. She indicated that reintroducing the father could confuse J.S., who had moved on from that chapter of his life.

In contrast, the father expressed regret over his absence, attributing it to personal struggles, including the suicide of a friend and depression. He denied any intention to abandon J.S., stating he thought of him daily and wanted to reconnect when he was in a better mental state. The father acknowledged a disconnect between his thoughts of J.S. and his actions, explaining he had been unprepared to resume a relationship. He testified to improvements in his life, such as consistent work and starting antidepressants. The GAL supported the termination of the father's parental rights, noting a lack of evidence that he attempted to maintain contact during his struggles and that he took no proactive steps to address his situation until after the termination petition was filed.

The father ceased contact with J.S. in August 2019, attempted to reconnect in December 2019, had two brief interactions, and subsequently vanished from J.S.'s life again. J.S. has since adapted positively, and further disruption could harm J.S.’s mental health and self-worth. The district court terminated the father's parental rights, prompting his appeal.

In reviewing the appeal, the standard is de novo, focusing on the best interests of the child while also considering the parent's interests. The private termination process under Iowa Code chapter 600A involves two steps: establishing the statutory grounds for termination and proving that termination serves the child's best interests. 

The court found two grounds for termination: the father's failure to meet child support under section 600A.8(4) and abandonment under section 600A.8(3)(b). The father only contested the abandonment finding and did not challenge the child support determination, thereby waiving that issue. The court concluded that the mother's evidence sufficiently demonstrated the ground for termination under section 600A.8(4), as the father failed to provide required support.

Abandonment under section 600A.8(3)(b) applies if a parent does not maintain substantial and continuous contact with the child, which includes financial support and regular visitation or communication. The father's lack of engagement met the criteria for abandonment.

The father argued against the termination's alignment with J.S.’s best interests. The court emphasized that a biological parent must actively fulfill parental duties, including financial support, interest in the child, and maintaining communication.

In determining the best interests of J.S., consideration of the father's past performance is crucial, as it reflects his potential future capabilities as a parent. The court acknowledges the seriousness of the father's issues and his genuine desire to reconnect with J.S. However, both the district court and the reviewing court conclude that terminating the father's parental rights serves J.S.'s best interests. J.S. is described as well-adjusted despite the father's absence, and a therapist indicates that J.S. has moved on. The potential harm lies not in the termination but in the possibility of reinstating the father's presence in J.S.'s life. While recognizing the father's regrets, the emphasis remains on J.S.'s needs and well-being, leading to the affirmation of the termination of parental rights. This decision aligns with previous legal standards that prioritize the child’s physical, mental, and emotional condition and the quality of the parent-child relationship.