IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-1178

Filed October 14, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C., 

Minor Child,

R.R.L.C., Father.

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Monty W. Franklin, 

District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in 

2008. AFFIRMED.

Stephen P. Dowil of Booth Law Firm, Osceola, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet Hoffman, Assistant Attorney 

General, and Michelle Rivera, County Attorney, for appellee State.

Carol A. Clark, Lamoni, for appellee Mother.

Michael A. Beal, Grimes, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in 

2008. He contends (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination, 

(2) termination was not in the child’s best interests, and (3) the district court 

should have declined to terminate his rights based on the bond he shared with 

the child.

I. The district court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to 

several statutory grounds. On our de novo review, we conclude termination was 

warranted pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2015), which requires 

proof of several elements including proof that the child could not be returned to 

the parent’s custody. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999)

(stating we may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to support any of 

the grounds cited by the district court).

The Department of Human Services became involved with the family after 

the father consumed methamphetamine and threatened to excise bad thoughts 

from his head, using a knife. The child was at home during the incident. He was

removed from the home following the incident. 

At the time of the termination hearing, the father was in jail awaiting trial 

on two charges of first-degree murder in an unrelated case. He was not in a 

position to care for child at the time of the termination hearing or in the imminent 

future. 

II. Termination must be in the child’s best interests. In re P.L., 778 

N.W.2d 33, 37-38 (Iowa 2010). There is no question it was. The child expressed 

fear of his father and regressed in his behaviors at the mere mention of 
3

reunification. While a behavioral health therapist who treated the father opined 

he was ready to see the child, the converse was not true. The father severely 

compromised the child’s safety by wielding a knife while high on 

methamphetamine, continuing to use drugs following the child’s removal, and 

failing to participate in services to address his addiction and mental health.

Termination of his parental rights was the best option for the child. 

III. The father also contends the district court should have declined to 

terminate his parental rights based on the parent-child bond. Any bond between 

father and child was based on fear. The child’s therapist testified to the trauma 

he saw in the child and even the father’s therapist stood by an earlier statement 

admonishing the department to exercise caution in allowing contact between 

parent and child. 

We affirm the district court’s termination of the father’s parental rights to 

the child.

AFFIRMED.