IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0327

Filed April 24, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF O.K., N.K., and A.K.,

Minor Children,

M.A., Mother,

Appellant,

G.K., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.

A father and a mother each appeal the termination of their parental rights. 

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Shireen L. Carter, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Gina E.V. Burress of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant 

father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Tonya A. Oetken of Oetken Law Firm, Inc., Ankeny, attorney for minor child 

A.K.

Barbara Davis, West Des Moines, attorney for minor children N.K. and O.K.

and guardian ad litem for minor children A.K., N.K., and O.K.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

This case involves three children: sixteen-year-old A.K, twelve-year-old 

N.K., and four-year-old O.K. George is the father of all three. Melissa is the mother 

of the older two. George and Melissa each appeal a juvenile court order 

terminating their parental rights.1 George challenges the statutory grounds and 

argues that termination is not in the children’s best interests. Melissa also raises 

a best-interests claim, invokes the exception for a child over ten who objects to 

termination, and lobbies for a guardianship. Finding no merit to the parents’ 

claims, we affirm the order in both appeals. 2

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

George and Melissa were married in 2003 and had three children together, 

including A.K. and N.K. (Their older son, Z.K., is now over eighteen and not a party 

to this appeal.) They separated in 2019, according to a case history drafted by the 

Iowa Department of Health and Human Services.3 After separating from Melissa, 

George and the children lived with Stephanie. George and Stephanie had one 

child together, O.K., born in 2020. 

The department became involved with the family in April 2022. A.K. told 

social workers that Stephanie was drinking alcohol to the point of passing out while 

caring for O.K., leaving the older children to mind the toddler. A.K. also said 

1 The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of O.K.’s mother, Stephanie,

who does not appeal.

2 We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re J.C., 857 

N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014). In doing so, we assess both the facts and the law, 

and we adjudicate rights anew. Id. As always, our core concern is the children’s

best interests. Id.

3

In his psychosexual evaluation, George reported that he married Melissa in 2001 

and they divorced in 2017 or 2018.
3

Stephanie had anger issues. Likewise, N.K. expressed concern that Stephanie 

was physically violent toward his sister A.K. The children said their father knew 

what was going on and did nothing about it. They also reported that their uncle 

and grandfather were staying with them and using illicit drugs in the house. The 

juvenile court adjudicated Z.K., A.K., N.K., and O.K. as children in need of 

assistance in July 2022. 

After that adjudication, the older children lived with their mother, Melissa. 

O.K. stayed with her father, George. But those placements did not work out. In 

August, Melissa allowed an “unsafe man” into her home who provided Z.K. with 

alcohol and marijuana. Beyond that, she did not fill the children’s prescriptions. 

And on top of everything, she was evicted and homeless before securing 

emergency housing. Because of Melissa’s instability, A.K. and N.K. moved in with 

other relatives. 

In December, the juvenile court removed O.K. from her father’s care 

because he was not following the department’s safety plan. A few months later, 

concerns arose about George’s interactions with O.K. In February 2023, O.K. told 

Emily, her family placement, that “daddy George spanks me” and “gives me 

owies.” O.K. was afraid to go to church if her father would be there. About a month 

later, Emily was changing her diaper when O.K. “stuck her finger inside her private 

area and started saying ‘daddy George cuts me in there.’” After a visit, O.K. 

rejected George’s request for a goodbye kiss and started crying hysterically when 

he kissed her anyway. Concerned about these incidents, Emily took O.K. to 

therapy in April 2023. After ten “discovery work” sessions, therapist Keifer Nevius
4

noted that O.K. withdrew from sensitive topics but some of her statements and 

behavior showed a “perceived fear of abuse.”

At a permanency hearing in May 2023, George confronted the department’s 

concerns that he had sexually abused O.K. He denied doing so, suggesting that 

the child may have been recalling times when he applied cream to her diaper rash. 

In his testimony, he took some responsibility for subjecting the older children to 

Stephanie’s abuse, but also minimized its impact. The juvenile court summarized 

George’s explanations for two other accusations:

He denied throwing [N.K.] out of a moving car, but acknowledged 

threatening to throw him out of the car if he did not put on his seat 

belt. He denied threatening to cut off [A.K.’s] fingers with garden 

shears but acknowledged telling her a story [about] how people in 

Middle East were punished for stealing—he had a pair of shears with 

him.

The court did not find George’s testimony credible—describing his narrative as 

“self-absorbed and self-centered.” In its permanency order, the court directed 

George to obtain a psychosexual evaluation. He did. That evaluation 

recommended that George not have any contact with O.K. until the accusations of 

sexual abuse were “resolved.” As for the older children, they refused to visit their 

father after the permanency hearing. 

In August 2023, the State petitioned for termination of parental rights. At 

the October termination trial, the court heard testimony from both parents. Melissa 

testified that she was living in a group home and “trying to get back on her feet.” 

She was receiving help with medication management for her depression, anxiety, 

and PTSD. She acknowledged it could be as long as a year before she could 
5

provide a safe home for A.K. and N.K. She asked the court to consider creating a 

guardianship for the children rather than terminating her parental rights.

By contrast, George testified that he was ready to resume custody of the 

children. He said he ended his relationship with Stephanie, recognizing it was 

unhealthy. He discussed his therapy sessions, noting that he was trying to “deal 

with his own traumas” so he could “get a better feel for what the kids have gone 

through.” He chronicled the abuse he had suffered as a child. George also 

discussed O.K.’s allegations of abuse, this time suggesting that her trauma related 

to having a doctor put in a catheter during a hospital stay. 

Counselor Nevius testified that O.K. had never mentioned that hospital stay. 

But during their sessions, she did discuss having nightmares, “cutting,” and 

“hurting down there.” Because Nevius could not pinpoint the source of O.K.’s 

trauma, he did not make a mandatory report to the department or law enforcement. 

But Nevius did express “extreme concern that [O.K.’s] living status remain as 

stable as possible.” 

The court also heard from Anna Hendrickson, the mental-health counselor

for A.K. and N.K. Hendrickson reported seeing “a lot of growth from both of them” 

as they settled into a more “stable and supportive lifestyle.” N.K. worried about his 

mother when she was homeless but felt relief when she moved into a group home. 

Both children showed a decreased interest in visiting either parent. At the time of 

the permanency hearing, both children expressed a preference to live with their 

mother. But recently they told Hendrikson that “they would prefer to stay with their 

current placement.” The counselor did not believe that a guardianship would be a 

good option for the children: “[T]he kids will always have that cloud of ‘what if’
6

floating over their head. It will prevent them from continuing to grow and enjoy life 

as is going forward.”

The father’s therapist, Julie Butler, testified that he was making progress by

focusing more on accountability. But the juvenile court placed little stock in her

testimony, finding that George had “repeatedly lied” to the therapist about critical 

information. For instance, George did not share the results of his psychosexual 

evaluation with his therapist.

The juvenile court granted the State’s petition, relying on Iowa Code 

section 232.116(1) (2023), paragraph (h) to terminate George’s parental rights to 

O.K. The court relied on paragraph (f) to terminate the rights of George and 

Melissa to N.K. and A.K. The court also concluded that terminating parental rights 

was less detrimental to these children than continuing the parent-child 

relationships. Both parents challenge the termination order.

II. Analysis

We will address the issues raised by each parent in turn.

A. George’s Appeal

The father first contends that the State failed to prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the children could not be safely returned to his custody. 

See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4), (h)(4).

4 He highlights his negative drug tests 

and his participation in therapy to address his own adverse childhood experiences. 

He next argues that termination is not in the children’s best interests because it 

4 George concedes that the State satisfied the other three elements of these 

provisions: the children were adjudicated CINA; they were the requisite age; and 

they had been removed for the time designated in the statute.
7

severs the parent-child bond.5 He points to the “extended period” in which he 

cared for O.K. and emphasizes that she “recognizes the father.”

The State counters that the father has not rebuilt a relationship with his 

children since removal. In fact, their relationships have become more strained 

since allegations surfaced that he sexually abused O.K. 

The juvenile court aptly described why the father could not resume custody:

[H]e allowed violence to occur in their home. He has failed to 

truthfully participate in services, including the psycho sexual 

evaluation. He remains unsafe to parent. Since contact with the 

father has stopped, the children have improved. None of the children

are asking to see the father.

After our de novo review, we reach the same conclusion as the juvenile 

court. George did not show a protective capacity when the children were being 

abused and neglected by Stephanie. He also allowed family members to use illicit 

drugs in their home. And he contributed to the unhealthy environment by 

threatening the children with physical harm. Finally, the juvenile court was 

naturally concerned with O.K.’s disturbing allegations of sexual abuse and did not 

find George’s shifting explanations credible. On this record, we find clear and 

convincing evidence that the children cannot safely return to his custody. In re

H.R.K., 433 N.W.2d 46, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (“Sexual abuse allegations aside, 

the record contains ample evidence in support of the court’s termination order 

5 The father’s petition on appeal conflates the framework for deciding what is in a 

child’s best interests in section 232.116(2) with the exception to termination in 

section 232.116(3)(c). While this briefing mistake is common, it muddles the 

burdens of proof. It is the State’s burden to prove termination is in the children’s 

best interests. See In re R.P., No. 23-0419, 2023 WL 3612412, at *2 (Iowa Ct. 

App. May 24, 2023). By contrast, our supreme court has held that the burden shifts 

to the parent resisting termination to prove that one of the exceptions in 

subsection (3) applies. In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 322 (Iowa 2021).
8

there is clear and convincing evidence that the children were physically abused 

and neglected.”). What’s more, the record belies the father’s claim that the juvenile 

court should have preserved his parental rights because of their bond.

B. Melissa’s Appeal

The mother does not contest the statutory grounds for termination, 

recognizing that she is unable to resume custody of A.K. and N.K. But she does 

argue that termination is not in their best interests. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). 

She also seeks an exception to termination based on A.K.’s objection. See id.

§ 232.116(3)(b). Finally, she contends that creating a guardianship with the 

current placement would be better than terminating her parental rights. 

We first address the children’s best interests. In doing so, we consider their 

safety; the best placement for furthering their long-term nurturing and growth; and 

their physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs. Id. § 232.116(2). 

Applying that framework, we conclude termination of Melissa’s parental rights

promotes the best interests of A.K. and N.K. They no doubt love their mother and 

wish the best for her. But their counselor believed that minimizing contact with 

Melissa would reduce their persistent fretting about her. Melissa argues counselor 

Hendrickson’s opinion is too speculative. We disagree. The children have already 

shown that greater stability frees them to enjoy normal adolescent pursuits. For 

instance, A.K. went to her first homecoming dance. And N.K. is less stressed 

about his mother and more involved with his placement family. Waiting for their 

mother to “get back on her feet” is not in their best interests. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 

489, 495 (Iowa 1990) (“Parenting . . . must be constant, responsible, and reliable.”).
9

Melissa next contends “there was testimony during the termination of 

parental rights proceedings that A.K., who was 16 years old, did not want her 

mother’s parental rights terminated.” From our reading, the evidence on A.K.’s 

objection was not that clear-cut. Social worker Monica Kordick testified that A.K. 

told her that she understands the situation and “her first wish would be Mom, but 

if that can’t happen, if it goes to termination, she would want to be adopted by the 

placement she’s at now.” Meanwhile, counselor Hendrickson testified that since 

the permanency hearing, A.K. expressed a preference to stay with her current 

placement. But even if the record reveals A.K.’s opposition, we agree with the 

juvenile court’s conclusion that the child-objection factor in section 232.116(3)(b) 

should not preclude termination here. What a child wants is not always in her best 

interests. See In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). Given 

Melissa’s instability, it was not advisable for the juvenile court to honor A.K.’s 

desire to preserve her mother’s parental rights. See id.

In that same vein, we reject Melissa’s request for a guardianship. Our 

supreme court has consistently advised that guardianships are not “legally 

preferable” alternatives to terminating parental rights. In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 

315 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). And that is true here. We are persuaded by 

the views of the children’s therapist that the “what-ifs” of living under a 

guardianship would extend the uncertainty they have endured during the CINA 

case. Although a loss for the children, termination of Melissa’s parental rights will 

provide them with more permanency and stability.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.