IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-1411

Filed February 3, 2021

IN THE INTEREST OF D.P.,

Minor Child,

A.P., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne 

Mefford, District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. 

AFFIRMED.

Misty White, Sigourney, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Denise McKelvie Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in 

2009.1 He contends (1) the district court should have afforded him six additional 

months to work toward reunification and (2) termination was not in the child’s best 

interests.

The department of human services learned that the child’s step-father was 

a registered sex offender and he physically assaulted the child. The child 

described “a lot of physical discipline” in the home, attempts by the step-father “to 

touch her,” and “being confined/locked in her bedroom.” 

The department implemented a safety plan under which the mother was to 

encourage the step-father to leave the home. The mother instead asked to have 

the child removed from her care. The child’s father was not a viable placement 

option because he lived in a home for adults with disabilities that did not permit 

children. The child was placed in foster care, where she remained throughout the 

proceedings. 

The district court adjudicated the child in need of assistance and eventually 

terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa 

Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020). That provision requires proof of several 

elements, including proof the child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody. The 

father does not challenge the evidence supporting the ground for termination. As 

noted, he argues the district court should have granted him “an additional six 

months to show that he could resume custody and care of his child.” See In re 

 

1 The court also terminated the mother’s parental rights to the child, and she does 

not appeal.
3

L.H., 949 N.W.2d 268, 272 (Iowa 2020) (stating a court may afford a parent an 

additional six months to work toward reunification) (citing Iowa Code 

§ 232.104(2)(b)). The district court acknowledged the father’s request for 

additional time but declined to grant the request. On our de novo review, we agree 

with the court’s decision. 

At the time of the termination hearing, the father remained in the same 

structured setting that disallowed children. According to the department’s case 

manager, he was told “from the very beginning” that his housing situation was a 

barrier to reunification. Although the father made efforts to obtain independent 

housing, testified that he was “moving up very quickly on a couple of” housing lists, 

and expressed a belief that with “just . . . a little more time” he would be able to 

secure an apartment, he acknowledged he could not “say for certain” how long it 

would take. 

The case manager testified the father’s health conditions also posed an 

impediment to reunification. In combination with his housing situation, she did not 

“feel like an additional six months would change that situation.” The child’s foster 

mother similarly testified, “I don’t feel it is in [the child’s] best interest to go six more 

months not knowing what’s going to happen in her life. That’s not fair to her.” 

We recognize the department had yet to secure an adoptive placement, 

raising doubts about its stated intent to move to permanency immediately. That 

said, we agree the prospect of reunification with the father within six months was 

tenuous. As the child’s guardian ad litem stated, “[The father] is lacking the 

parental skills; the life skills; the financial skills; the transportation skills; and just 

the adulting skills, in general, to be able to take care of himself, let alone a pre-
4

teen and teenage daughter on his own. I just do not see that changing in the next 

six months.” We conclude the district court appropriately declined to grant the 

father’s request to defer termination of his parental rights for six months.

Termination must also serve the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(2). The guardian ad litem agreed the father and child “love[d] each 

other” and were “bonded to one another.” But, as noted, she did not believe the 

father possessed the “tools and skills” to care for a teenage child. The father 

acknowledged he was “still wrestling with” whether reunification was in the child’s 

best interests. While he made commendable strides in stabilizing his life and he 

expressed a willingness to place his child’s welfare first, we agree with the district 

court that termination was in the child’s best interests.

We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his child.

AFFIRMED.