IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-1933

Filed January 11, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF G.R.,

Minor Child,

J.R., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela A. Doyle, 

District Associate Judge.

A father appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental 

rights to his child. AFFIRMED. 

Douglas E. Cook of Cook Law Firm, Jewell, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd (until 

withdrawal) and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 

Derek J. Johnson of Johnson & Bonzer, P.L.C., Fort Dodge, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor child. 

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 
2

MULLINS, Judge.

A father appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to 

his child, G.R., born in August 2014. We review termination-of-parental-rights 

proceedings de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). “We are 

not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact, but we do give them weight, 

especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.” Id. (quoting In re A.M., 843 

N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014)). Our primary consideration is the best interests of 

the child. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). 

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

Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l) (2016).1 He does not challenge the 

statutory grounds for termination on appeal; thus, we do not address this issue 

and affirm the statutory grounds for termination. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 

40 (Iowa 2010) (stating that when a parent does not challenge the existence of 

statutory grounds, we need not address the issue). Instead, the father contends 

termination is not in the child’s best interests because the child may be adopted 

by her maternal grandmother, which he believes would create a dangerous 

situation for the child given the child’s mother’s serious substance-abuse issues. 

At trial, the father requested that a guardianship be established with the child’s 

grandmother.2 

G.R. has lived with her maternal grandmother her entire life. The 

grandmother wants to adopt G.R. She has sought professional help on how to 

 

1 The mother voluntarily consented to the termination of her parental rights to the child. 

She does not appeal. 

2 The father does not make this same argument on appeal. 
3

handle her daughter’s substance-abuse issues and protect G.R. In determining 

best interests, the juvenile court noted: 

Neither parent is in a position to assume custody of the child 

at this time. [The mother] and [father] do not have suitable homes 

for the child. Neither parent desires custody of the child at this 

time. [The father] does not even want custody after he is released 

from prison, but believes the child should remain in [the 

grandmother]’s home. The material, physical, mental and 

emotional condition and needs of the child cannot be met by the 

parents, but have been met and continue to be met by the maternal 

grandmother. In order to further the long-term nurturing and growth 

of the child, and to meet the physical, mental and emotional 

condition and needs of the child, the best placement is in the 

custody of the [Iowa] Department of Human Services [(DHS)] for 

eventual adoption.

We do not disagree with the juvenile court’s conclusion termination is in G.R.’s

best interests so that she may be available for adoption. We affirm this part of 

the juvenile court’s termination order. 

The father also argues the juvenile court should have granted his request 

for an additional six months to work toward reunification. Under Iowa Code 

section 232.104(2)(b), a court may authorize a six-month extension if it 

determines “the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer 

exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” 

The father last had contact with his child in December 2014, when she 

was four months old, even though DHS provided him other opportunities to visit 

with the child. The father testified at the combined permanency and termination 

hearing that he has a significant history of substance abuse. At the time of the 

hearing, he was incarcerated on charges of extortion and possession of 

methamphetamine. He testified he continued to use methamphetamine until his 

incarceration in January 2016. The father has a tentative discharge date in 
4

February 2018 but hopes to be paroled before that time. The father admitted at 

the termination hearing that he would not be able to parent G.R. upon his release 

from prison but did not want his parental rights terminated because he wanted 

the opportunity to parent her at some point in the future. Based upon our de 

novo review of the record, we are not persuaded the need for removal would no 

longer exist at the end of six months. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We affirm 

the juvenile court’s denial of the father’s request for an additional six months.

AFFIRMED.