IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0655

Filed June 15, 2016

IN THE INTEREST OF C.D.,

Minor Child,

J.P., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District 

Associate Judge.

A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights. AFFIRMED. 

Cole J. Mayer of Masterson, Bottenberg & Eichhorn, L.L.P., Waukee, for 

appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Karl Wolle of the State Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, for 

minor child.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2

BOWER, JUDGE.

A father appeals1the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to 

his child, claiming the Department of Human Services (DHS) did not make

reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification with the child, the court improperly 

denied the father’s request for a six-month extension, and termination is not in 

the best interests of the child due to the closeness of the parent-child bond. We 

affirm. 

We review de novo proceedings terminating parental rights. See In re 

A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The three-step statutory framework 

governing the termination of parental rights is well-established and need not be 

repeated herein. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). The juvenile 

court issued a thorough and well-reasoned ruling terminating the father’s parental 

rights; we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as our own. The 

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

section 232.116(1)(h) (2015). On appeal, the father does not challenge this 

statutory ground. 

A. Reasonable Efforts

The father claims DHS did not make reasonable efforts, pursuant to Iowa 

Code section 232.102, to help him work toward reunification. Specifically, he 

claims DHS did not facilitate visits, did not consider other placements for C.D., 

and failed to provide reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan. The State 

claims the father has not preserved error on this claim because he raised this 

claim for the first time at the termination hearing. We will not review a 

 

1 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated and she does not appeal. 
3

reasonable-efforts claim unless it is raised prior to the termination hearing. See 

In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). Immediately prior to 

the termination hearing, the district court held a reasonable efforts hearing and

ruled on the essence of the father’s claim, therefore error has been preserved. 

The focus of the requirement for reasonable efforts is on services to 

improve parenting. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). “However, it 

also includes visitation designed to facilitate reunification while providing 

adequate protection for the child.” Id. When a parent is incarcerated, DHS 

should supply services that are reasonable under the circumstances. In re S.J.,

620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).

On this issue, the court reasoned:

If this case began in March 2015 and all the court looked at 

were the services to work towards reunification with the parents 

thereafter, then the parents would probably be correct. The issues

surrounding placement in 2015 following removal from father were 

frustrating as an overall matter. And neither parent has had a visit 

with the child since [C.D.] was placed in family foster care in June 

2015.

However, this case began not in March 2015 but rather 

much earlier—two and a half years earlier—in September 2012. 

The entire context matters and must be considered. What 

happened after [C.D.] was removed from his father a year ago 

cannot be viewed in a vacuum. For two and a half years prior to 

that time, DHS provided much more than just reasonable efforts to 

support this family. In particular, significant services and patience 

and effort were expended to not ever have [C.D.] removed from his 

parents and biological family in total. And when considering the 

reasonable-efforts challenge and issue in the context of the entire 

case, the court has no problem in DENYING the parents’ motion.

Father had many opportunities, especially from March 2015 

until August 2015, to engage in community based services 

including visits (certainly offered in March and April and May, and 

would have been offered had he not been in warrant). He chose 

not to comply/participate. From August 2015 until the end of 

January 2016, there was significant uncertainty as to whether he 

would be in the community. Visits between him and [C.D.], a 3 year 
4

old, via the jail’s video monitoring service would not have been

appropriate or helpful for [C.D.] and his mental health and wellbeing 

on this record given all circumstances.

Upon our de novo review, we agree DHS provided reasonable efforts. 

B. Request for Additional Time 

The father claims the juvenile court improperly denied his request for 

additional time to work toward reunification. Based on his past conduct, the 

father has not demonstrated additional time would be beneficial. “The crucial 

days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to 

face up to their own problems.” In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). 

While the father had custody of C.D., he continued to use methamphetamine, 

which led to C.D.’s removal from the father’s care. C.D. tested positive for 

methamphetamine at the time of removal. Further, the father’s poor decision 

making, as evidenced by his run-ins with law enforcement, including his 

whereabouts being unknown for several months and his incarceration, provides 

additional support for the denial of his request for an extension. We affirm the 

juvenile court’s ruling.

C. Best Interests

The father claims the termination of his parental rights is not in the best 

interests of the child as the closeness of the parent-child bond makes termination 

improper. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2), (3). In determining the best interests of 

the child, we give primary consideration to “the child’s safety, to the best 

placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and 

to the physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs of the child[ren].” 
5

See Iowa Code § 232.116(2); P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 37. On these issues, the 

juvenile court reasoned:

Turning to the best interest of the child, the overriding and 

governing best-interest factor at this time in this case is the need for 

finality. The need for permanency. The need for resolution and 

certainty. This little boy has endured much. Too much. Some of it 

the fault of the undersigned in terms of timely resolution of matters 

and need for court records to be developed. [C.D.] can’t endure 

more moves, he can’t endure more uncertainty. This Court and the 

child welfare system is not good at nor are we well equipped to stay 

in the lives of young children in perpetuity. There are some cases 

where we have to recognize that our continued systemic 

involvement in a child’s life does more harm than good. This is one 

of those cases. We need to provide a resolution and bring matters 

to an end. This is quite simply the governing factor in this case at 

this time.

. . . . 

The court has considered whether any of the five permissive 

exceptions to the termination statute should govern and cause the

court to deny termination. The court deems that any and all 

attachment [C.D.] has with his . . . father should not rule the day. At 

this point in time, such does not and cannot outweigh the need for 

resolution and for what the court hopes will be permanency in a 

committed and loving forever home for [C.D.]

We agree with the juvenile court’s reasoning and find termination is in the 

child’s best interests. The court properly declined to find termination was 

improper due to the closeness of the parent/child relationship. We affirm the 

termination of the father’s parental rights. 

AFFIRMED.