IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 22

- 0873 Filed July 20, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., Minor Child B.R., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley , District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.

John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, attorney for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey

- Kacena, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Kimberly Ann O patz, Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Bower, C.J. , and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.2

AHLERS , Judge

. This is a termination

- of

- parental

- rights proceeding in which the juvenile
court terminated the rights of both parents . The child was two years old at the time of the termination hearing . Only the father appeals , so our discussion focuses primarily on him

. The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DH S) because of reports that the parents were using illegal drugs while caring for the child and the father assaulted someone in the child’s presence. The DHS investigation uncovered concerns about the family’s unstable housing and allegations that the fath er had sexually abused other children. The State started child

- in

- need

- of

- assistance (CINA) proceedings, and t he juvenile court adjudicated the child to be a CINA

. At the time of the CINA disposition al hearing, despite the noted concerns, the child remai ned in the parents’ c ustody in the hope that services could enable the child to remain there

. As part of the CINA adjudication and disposition, t he father was ordered to cooperate with drug testing and complete a psychosexual evaluation. Following dispos ition, the family rarely contacted their service providers, and the father did not participate in drug testing or complete a psychosexual evaluation. About t wo months after the disposition al hearing, the father contacted the DHS and requested that the chi ld be placed in foster care because the parents

were homeless and unable to care for him. The juvenile court ordered the child removed from the parents’ custody. The child was placed in foster care. Upon removal, the child was discovered to be undernour ished.3 Following the child’s removal and placement in foster care, the father failed to consistently contact and meet with providers. He went several months without having a visit with the child. The child’s foster parents attempted to assist in facil itating the visits, but the father acted inappropriate ly and aggressive ly, so that assistance stopped. In addition to the visitation concerns, the father failed to maintain stable housing throughout DHS involvement. At the termination hearing, the fath er testified he lived in the basement unit of a residence. He planned to stay in that location indefinitely, but the owner of the home testified that the arrangement would likely last no more than six months. T he father’s employment status and ability to financially provide for the child also raised concerns . The father’s testimony regarding his employment situation and his situation in general was contradictory , and he admitted he “only tell[s] partial truths.” The juvenile court found the fa ther to be “totally lacking in credibility.” The child has remained with a foster family since removal and has been thriving. After months of services be ing provided, the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parents’ rights. The mother co nsented to termination of her rights . The father resisted. Following a termination hearing, the juvenile court terminated the rights of both parents. The father a ppeals . He contends the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination and th at termination is not in the child’s best interests.
I. Standard and Scope of Review We review termination

- of

- parental

- rights rulings de novo. In re Z.P. , 948 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Iowa 2020). We give weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings4

and credibil ity determinations, but we are not bound by them. Id. at 522

– 23. Clear and convincing evidence must support the grounds for termination. Id. at 523. Our review of termination

- of

- parental

- rights proceedings follows a t hree

step analysis. In re W.M. , 957 N.W.2d 305, 313 (Iowa 2021). We first determine whether a ground for termination has been established under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2022)

. Id. Next, w e consider whether termination is in the child’s best interests using the standards set by Iowa Code section 232.116(2). Id. Finally, w e consider whether an exception in section 232.116(3) should be applied to preserve the parent

- child relationship. Id. “However, if a parent does not challenge a step in our analysis, we need not address it.” In re N.N. , No. 21

- 1978, 2022 WL 610318, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2022) (quoting In re J.P. , No. 19

- 1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020)).
II. Analysis As mentioned, the father raises challenges to only the first two steps of the analysis on appeal. We address them separately.
A. Statutory Ground The father’s rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). T erminati on is permitted on this ground upon proof of four elements: (1) The child is three years of age or younger

.

(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96

. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days

.5 (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child canno t be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). The father concedes the first three elements . He challenges only the fourth. He asserts the child could have been returned to his custody at the time of the termination hearing. See In re A.M. , 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) ( holding that “ at the present time ” means at the time of the terminatio n hearing). Following our de novo review, w e agree with the juvenile court that the child could not be safely returned to the father . The DHS had good reason to be concerned about the father’s drug use, so he was ordered to undergo testing. The fathe r failed to cooperate with drug testing, which permits a conclusion that test results would be positive. See In re B.C.

- S. , No. 21

- 1817, 2022 WL 946994, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2022). His failure to submit to drug testing perpetuat ed
concerns regar ding his sobriety.
T he father’s history raised concerns of sexual abuse of children and prompted the need for a psychosexual evaluation, but the father refused to get one. This refusal added to concerns for the child’s safety. The father also contin ued to be aggressive toward service providers and the child’s foster parents, and he failed to engage in services generally. See In re T.S. , 868 N.W.2d 425, 437 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (affirming termination when the parent failed to make genuine efforts to comply with the case plan). This behavior contributed to the father being limited to supervised visits , and he then failed to attend all but “a couple” of those. See In re C.N. , No. 19

- 1 8 61, 2020 WL 567283, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020) ( “[The parent] failed to progress toward6

reunification over the life of this case. [The parent] never progressed to unsupervised visits or trial home visits. Without this necessary progression, we cannot say the children could have returned to the [parent ] ’s care.”). Finally, the father’s in ability to provide a home or financially provide for the child’s basic needs supports the conclusion that the child could not be returned to his custody

. See I

n re M.C. , No. 17

- 1184, 2017 WL 4315079, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017) (considering unstable housing as a factor in determining whether a child can be returned home) ; In re L.B. , No. 18

- 1017, 2018 WL 3650370, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2018) (finding a parent’s “economic instability and concomitant ina bility to meet the most basic needs of [their] children” to be a basis for terminating parental rights). While the father claims to have steady employment and stable housing, the only evidence supporting that claim is his own testimony, which was remarkab ly inconsistent and contradictory , leading to the juvenile court’s conclusion that the father’s testimony was “totally lacking in credibility.” Following our review, the evidence establishes that the father was unable to provide adequate housing or financ ial support for the child. The child could not be safely returned to the father’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. As a result, we find the State proved this statutory ground for termination of the father’s parental rights.
B

. Best Intere sts The father contends termination is not in the child’s best interests. The framework set out in Iowa Code section 232.116(2) requires the court, in contemplating the child’s best interests, to give primary consideration to “the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long

- term nurturing and growth of7

the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” For many of the same reasons why the child could not be returned to the father’s custody, we conclude t ermination is in the child’s best interests. “Insight for the determination of the child’s long

- range best interests can be gleaned from evidence of the parent’s past performance for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care tha t parent is capable of providing.” In re A.B. , 815 N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012) (quoting In re C.B. , 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000)). Looking at the father’s past performance, we note that the father failed to exhibit any meaningful progress in the areas of concern that led to the initial DHS and court involvement. Concerns about drug abuse and sexual interest in children remained unchecked. The father also failed to do as basic a task as visiting the child regularly. As a result, there is, at best, on ly a limited bond between the father and child. In contrast to how he was doing in the parents’ custody, the child is now thriving in the care of the foster family

. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2) (giving favorable consideration in the best

- interest analysis to a child’s favorable integration into a foster family). T his fact further supports the conclusion that t erminating the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.
III. Conclusion The State proved a statutory ground for termination, and t ermination is in the child’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.