IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17

- 1848 Filed March 21, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF P.C. and R.C., Minor Children, E.C., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Frideres Seymour , District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children, born
in 2005 and 2006. AFFIRMED.

Lucas M. Taylor of Law Offices of Mark Hinshaw, West Des Moines, for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ana gha Dixit, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Erin E. Mayfield of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for
minor children.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.2

VAITHESWARAN, Judge. A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children, born
in 2005 and 2006. He contends t he record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the ground for termination cited by the district court. The court relied on Io wa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2016) , which requires proof of several elements including proof the children could not be returned to the parent’s care. The family came to the attention of the department of human services based on housing and domestic violence concerns. The district court adjudicated the children in need of assistance but left them in the mother’s care, in light of the father’s move from the house. Later , the district court modified the order and transferred the children from the mother’s custody to the custody of the department . The court based the decision in part on the continued unsafe conditions in t he home and “unresolved domestic violence issues between the parents.” Those domestic violence issues were reported by the mother’s oldest child , who said he had watched the father beat his mother for years

. H e said at times he had to punch the father to get him to stop. The mother confirmed the history of domestic violence , including an incident in which the father grabbed her by her hair and threw her in the front yard. S he indicated the father still stayed at the home

on occasion and continued to a buse her

. Notably, t he father initially acknowledged violence in the relationship but asserted it was mutual. In time, the court granted the parents a three

- month extension to facilitate reunification with the children

. During the extension period, t h e State petitioned to terminate the parents’ rights.3 At the termination hearing, the father denied subjecting the mother to physical abuse and specifically denied grabbing her by the hair. He asserted the mother was the one who perpetrated abuse, causin g him financial and emotional
trauma

. The district court did not believe the father . The court found he chose “to selectively report issues of domestic violence to his own therapist, even though he knew he needed to address domestic violence before the children could be safely returned to his custody.” The court’s adverse credibility determination f inds support in t he testimony of the father’s therapist. Until the day of the termination hearing, she was unaware
the department viewed the father rather than the mother as the perpetrator of the abuse

. During her eleven sessions with th e father, she testified the father never mentioned abuse inflicted by him but only abuse inflicted on him. She spent two sessions addressing domestic violence in this context. She did not create a safety plan because the father denied an ongoing relation ship with the mother. A service provider confirmed ongoing contact between the mother and father. She also described speaking to the father about the importance of addressing domestic violence . A ccording to her, he did not understand the significance

. The department social worker overseeing the case concurred in the father’s need to address violence in the relationship. While she acknowledged domestic abuse classes were unavailable to individuals who had not been convicted of a crime , she pointed to the availability of therapy and expressed concern about the short time the father spent addressing the issue with his therapist

.4

The district court determined the father failed to participate “in any services to meaningfully address domestic violence is sues” and failed to take “accountability for [his] behaviors.” We concur in this assessment. On our de novo review, we conclude the children could not be returned to the father’s custody and termination was warranted under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f)

. AFFIRMED.