IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1288

Filed August 5, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF H.L.,

Minor Child,

S.L., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Julie 

Schumacher, District Associate Judge.

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

born in 2006. AFFIRMED.

Harold K. Widdison of Harold K. Widdison, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant

father.

John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for appellee mother.

Jessica R. Noll of Deck Law L.L.P., Sioux City, attorney and guardian ad 

litem for minor child.

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

VAITHESWARAN, J.

A mother petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights to their child

pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 600A (2013). She alleged he abandoned the 

child. Following a hearing, the district court granted the petition. On appeal, the 

father contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the 

court’s finding of abandonment.

A parent “abandon[s] a minor child” when the “parent . . . rejects the duties 

imposed by the parent-child relationship . . . which may be evinced by the 

person, while being able to do so, making no provision or making only a marginal 

effort to . . . communicate with the child.” Iowa Code § 600A.2(19). The district 

court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 

600A.8(3)(b), which states in pertinent part:

[A] parent is deemed to have abandoned the child unless the 

parent maintains substantial and continuous or repeated contact 

with the child as demonstrated by contribution toward support of the 

child of a reasonable amount, according to the parent’s means, as 

demonstrated by any of the following:

(1) Visiting the child at least monthly when physically and 

financially able to do so and when not prevented from doing 

so by the person having lawful custody of the child.

(2) Regular communication with the child or with the person 

having the care or custody of the child, when physically and 

financially unable to visit the child or when prevented from 

visiting the child by the person having lawful custody of the 

child.

(Emphasis added.) 

The father contends the child’s mother prevented him from visiting and 

communicating with the child. The record belies this assertion. 
3

The mother separated from the father shortly after the child’s first birthday. 

Following the separation, the mother moved in with her parents, whose address 

was in the phone book. The father acknowledged knowing where the mother’s 

parents lived but testified he went to their home only two or three times after the 

break-up. According to the mother, the father’s contacts with the child between 

her first and second birthdays were “[s]hort and far between” and he had no 

contact with her after the second birthday.

The absence of contact was intentional on the father’s part. He testified 

he refused to see the child because the mother slapped his daughter from 

another relationship shortly before the separation.

The father’s only contact with the child from 2008 forward came in the 

form of a single letter informing the mother about his receipt of social security 

disability benefits and the child’s eligibility for dependent benefits. With this 

exception, he did not correspond with or see the child. While he provided some 

support in the form of social security dependent benefits, the mother received a 

notice of overpayment concerning these benefits. Additionally, the father failed 

to pay child support when these benefits were unavailable.

In the years following the parents’ separation, the mother twice moved to 

homes in the same city as her parents’ home and the father’s home. The father 

took no action to see his child. 

At the time of the termination hearing, the child was seven years old. 

According to the mother, the father was a “complete stranger” to the child and 

she had no “emotional bond or connection with him.” 
4

On our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that 

the father abandoned the child. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the 

father’s parental rights to the child.

AFFIRMED.