A.H., Father, Appellant. v. << (2023)

A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the father's parental rights, and termination is in the child's best interests, and none of the exceptions to termination should be applied. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

A.H. is the father of L.H., who was born in 2020.¹ The child was removed from the parents’ care in February 2022, due to the father's use of methamphetamine. The child was placed in the care of the maternal grandparents.² The father entered a substance-abuse treatment program.

On March 30, the child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2022).³ The father completed the substance-abuse treatment program, but following the mother's death in May, he relapsed in using methamphetamine.

The father was in jail early in November. After he was released from jail his whereabouts became unknown for a period of time and he was not having contact with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the child. Eventually, HHS discovered the father was incarcerated.

On February 28, 2023, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the father's parental rights. At the time of the termination hearing in March, the father remained in prison. He agreed the child could not be placed in his care at that time. He also agreed that even if he were released from custody, the child could not immediately be placed in his care because he needed to address his substance-abuse and mental-health problems. The father asked to have the children placed in a guardianship with the maternal grandparents.

The juvenile court terminated the father's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2023). The court found termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The court also declined to apply an exception to termination, finding termination of the father's rights would not be detrimental to the child, as the evidence did not support a finding of a close bond between the parent and child. The father now appeals.

II. Standard of Review

Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “ ‘Clear and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014).

In general, we follow a three-step analysis in reviewing the termination of a parent's rights. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). First, we consider whether there is a statutory ground for termination of the parent's rights under section 232.116(1). Id. Second, we look to whether termination of the parent's rights is in the child's best interests. Id. (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third, we consider whether any of the exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3) should be applied. Id. But in instances where the parent does not raise a claim relating to any of the three steps, we do not address them and instead limit our review to the specific claims presented. See id. at 40 (recognizing we do not consider a step the parent does not challenge).

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The father claims there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of his parental rights. “We will uphold an order terminating parental rights where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 434 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). “When the juvenile court orders termination of parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate on one of the sections to affirm.” Id. at 435.

We elect to focus on the termination of the father's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).⁴ The father does not dispute that the State proved all the elements of section 232.116(1)(h), but he points out that but for his incarceration, he would be in a position to care for the child. Unfortunately, the father is incarcerated. He testified at the termination hearing that he could not care for the child at the time of the termination hearing. Pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h)(4), we consider whether a child can be returned to the parent at the time of the termination hearing. See In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021). Additionally, the father testified that even when he is released from prison, the child could not immediately be placed in his care because he needed to address his substance-abuse and mental-health problems.

We determine the juvenile court properly applied section 232.116(1)(h).

IV. Best Interests

The father asserts that termination of his parental rights is not in the child's best interests. In considering the best interests of a child, 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 needs of the child under section 232.116(2).” P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41. “It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” Id.

The father asks to have the child placed in a guardianship with the maternal grandparents. He states that this would allow him to maintain his parental rights but would still protect the child. In general, “a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 315 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). A guardianship does not give the same level of security and stability to a child as termination of parental rights because a parent may later challenge a guardianship. See id.

In denying the father's request to place the child in a guardianship, the court stated:

The Court finds [the child] needs permanency that can only be provided by termination and adoption. [The father] has been to substance treatment more than once and despite his best intentions he has relapsed over and over. The relapses go hand in hand with his continued criminal violations resulting in incarceration. It has also prevented [the father] to consistently be in his son's life. [The father] testified this is not due to a lack of services but it is on him.

We find termination of the father's parental rights is in the child's best interests.

V. Exceptions

The father raises an argument based on section 232.116(3)(c), which provides the court may decide not to terminate parental rights if “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” He again states the child could be placed in a long-term guardianship with the maternal grandparents.

The exceptions to termination found “in section 232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory.” In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 324 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). “The court may exercise its discretion in deciding whether to apply the factors in section 232.116(3) to save the parent-child relationship based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best interests of the children.” In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). “[O]nce the State has proven a ground for termination, the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception to termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) ․” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). The child's best interests remain our first consideration. Id. at 475.

The juvenile court declined to apply any of the exceptions in section 232.116(3). The court stated:

The Court has considered all possible exceptions regarding the termination of the parental rights of [A.H.] and has determined that clear and convincing evidence shows that termination of [his] parental rights is in the child's best interests and that no exceptions exist, or that any applicable exceptions do not outweigh the best interests of the child which require termination of the parent's parental rights so that permanency and stability can be provided to the child.

The father has not met his burden to show termination of his parental rights would be detrimental to the child due to a close parent-child bond. The father has not been present during much of the child's life based on the time the father has spent in treatment for substance abuse and in prison. The father had not seen the child since June or July 2022.

We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The child's mother is deceased following a traffic accident on May 30, 2022.

2.   The grandparents also care for the child's half-sibling, who has the same mother but a different father.

3.   This provision is now found at Iowa Code § 232.96A(3)(b) (2023).

4.   Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination of parental rights when the court finds:(1) The child is three years of age or younger.(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.

CARR, Senior Judge.