M.B., Father, Appellant. v. << (2026)

The juvenile court terminated a father's parental rights to two children on multiple statutory grounds.¹ The father appeals.

We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Although we are not bound by the juvenile court's factual findings, we give them respectful consideration, especially when assessing the credibility of witnesses. Id.

Our review follows a three-step process of determining whether statutory grounds for termination exist, whether termination is in the children's best interests, and whether an exception should apply to prevent termination. Id. at 294. But we do not address any step in this process that is not challenged on appeal. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Because the father only challenges the statutory grounds for termination, we limit our review accordingly.

When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on multiple statutory grounds, we can affirm based on any ground supported by the record. In re L.A., 20 N.W.3d 529, 532 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc). Here, the juvenile court terminated the father's rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (f ), and (l) (2026). We elect to focus on section 232.116(1)(f ). That ground permits termination upon sufficient proof that (1) the child is four years of age or older; (2) the child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance; (3) the child has been removed from the physical custody of the parent for at least twelve of the last eighteen months; and (4) the child cannot be returned to the custody of the parent. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f ).

The father only challenges the last element—whether the children could have been safely returned to his custody at the time of the termination hearing. See In re R.M.-V., 13 N.W.3d 620, 626 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024) (interpreting “at the present time” as used in section 232.116(1)(f )(4) to mean “at the time of the termination hearing”). Following our de novo review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court that the children could not be safely returned to the father's custody at the time of the termination hearing.

This family has been involved with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services multiple times. Child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings initiated in 2020 ultimately ended with the termination of the mother's parental rights and the children being placed in the father's custody. Those proceedings closed in November 2023.

About a year later, the department again sought the adjudication of the children as CINA following the father's arrest for assaulting his wife and reports that the father injured the face of one of the children. Since that time, the father's issues with anger and violence remain unresolved.

The father has difficulty controlling his emotions, which has resulted in convictions for violent offenses like kidnapping, assault, and domestic violence. When asked at the termination hearing if he has a history of violence against women, the father clarified: “Not just women. I've been found guilty of multiple assaults.”

And the father has directed his anger toward those involved in this case. When communicating with a caseworker about his visitation, he has been abusive toward the worker and yelled at the worker to the point that the caseworker could not communicate with him. The caseworker summarized an attempt to communicate with the father about visitation as follows:

This worker attempted to discuss concerns with his mother's protective capacity. [The father] became irate and began making numerous abusive comments. [The father] hung up the phone on this worker multiple times after not being able to regulate his emotions. He was screaming at the top of his lungs at this worker during most of the conversations this worker had with [the father]. This worker had six separate phone interactions with [the father], and spoke with him in total for roughly an hour. This was due to [the father] hanging the phone up when becoming frustrated and proceeding to call this worker back. During the times he would hang up, he was “blowing up” his mother's phone as well.

The caseworker's report to the court is replete with summaries of similar interactions, some of which included verbal attacks on the caseworker and the presiding judge. The caseworker opined that the father has “no ability to manage his frustrations/emotions/temper.” And a December 2025 case meeting ended with the father being escorted out by a law enforcement officer.

Beyond the father's inability to control his anger toward others, he also has a history of threatening self-harm. While on the phone with a representative from the Internal Revenue Service, the father became so angry and distraught that he stated he “was going to shoot himself in the head.” The representative was concerned enough to contact local authorities, who then looked for the father at the paternal grandmother's home where the children were placed following their removal from the father's custody. And after speaking with the caseworker on a separate occasion, the father sent a text message to his mother saying, “Tell the boys I love them[.] I'm off to off myself [.] I'm seriously done and no one cares about me ․” At the termination hearing, the father claimed he had recently admitted himself to a psychiatric facility, claiming the children's attorney and guardian ad litem had driven him to thoughts of self-harm.

In short, the father is not a safe individual to provide care for the children. He cannot control his emotions enough to have the most basic interaction with another adult even when the issue is related to his own children's well-being. See In re M.P., No. 19-0995, 2019 WL 5063337, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019) (concluding custody could not be returned to a father due to his “harassment, intimidation, and coercion” of adults involved in the children's lives); In re K.S., No. 18-1759, 2018 WL 6705523, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2018) (considering a mother's “inability to regulate her emotions and interact with others” in concluding children could not be returned to her custody); In re O.N., No. 17-0918, 2017 WL 3525324, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2017) (finding a mother's inability to regulate her emotions supported the conclusion that her child could not be returned to her custody). And a basic tenant of parenting is that one must be able to constructively interact with others to be able to provide adequate care for a child, as childrearing necessarily involves collaboration with others such as teachers, doctors, neighbors, and family members. We agree with the juvenile court that the children could not be safely returned to the father's custody, establishing a statutory ground for termination.

As the father raises no other issues on appeal, we affirm the juvenile court's decision to terminate the father's parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The mother's parental rights were terminated previously. The termination of the mother's rights is not at issue in this appeal.

Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.