IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-1071

Filed December 21, 2016

IN THE INTEREST OF N.E.C.,

Minor child,

M.L., Mother,

Petitioner-Appellee,

R.C., Father,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William S. 

Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.

A father appeals from the district court order terminating his parental 

rights. AFFIRMED.

Monte M. McCoy of McCoy Legal Services, Centerville, for appellant 

father.

Steven E. Goodlow, Albia, for appellee mother.

Mary B. Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for minor 

child.

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

MCDONALD, Judge.

Melanie filed a petition pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 600A (2015) 

seeking to terminate the parental rights of Rodney in their child, N.E.C., on the 

ground Rodney had abandoned the child. The district court granted the petition 

and terminated Rodney’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 

600A.8(3)(b). On appeal, Rodney contends Melanie failed to prove Rodney 

abandoned the child and failed to prove termination of his parental rights is in the 

best interest of the child. Our review is de novo. See In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 

600, 601 (Iowa 1998). 

There is clear and convincing evidence Rodney abandoned the child 

within the meaning of the code. See Iowa Code § 600A.8 (requiring clear and 

convincing proof), (3)(b) (setting forth elements to prove abandonment). The 

child at issue was eleven years old at the time of the termination hearing. 

Rodney had been a part of the child’s life when the child was younger. More 

recently, however, Rodney has been absent due to his escalating criminal 

behavior. During the five years preceding the termination hearing, Rodney had 

been imprisoned on three different occasions. At the time of the termination 

hearing, Rodney was incarcerated in Missouri due to his sixth conviction for 

operating while intoxicated. His discharge date was in 2018, although Rodney 

testified he could be paroled sooner. During this most recent period of 

incarceration, Rodney has not provided financial support for the child. Rodney 

had also not maintained a place of significance in the child’s life. At the time of 

the termination hearing, Rodney had not seen the child in over a year. Rodney 

had not made an effort to maintain regular communication with the child despite 
3

knowing the mother’s telephone number. A parent “cannot use his incarceration 

as a justification for his lack of relationship with the child.” In re C.A.V., 787 

N.W.2d 96, 101 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). Rodney’s decision to continue criminal 

behavior resulting in his incarceration is a choice he has repeatedly made at the 

expense of forging a relationship with N.E.C.

We also conclude termination is in the child’s best interest. Because of 

his repeated incarcerations, Rodney has limited his bond with the child. See In 

re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 8–9 (Iowa 1993); In re N.W., No. 16-1548, 2016 WL 

6652474, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016); In re R.P., No. 16-1154, 2016 WL 

4544426, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016). The mother is remarried, and the 

child’s stepfather is willing to adopt the child upon the termination of Rodney’s 

parental rights. The child and the stepfather have many common interests and a 

strong bond. The child has expressed a preference to be adopted by his 

stepfather. The termination of the father’s parental rights would bring certainty to 

the child’s life.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. 

R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), (e).

AFFIRMED.