IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 13-0627

Filed August 13, 2014

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.M.,

Minor Child,

B.J.M., Father,

Petitioner,

J.B., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, 

Judge.

A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights in a private 

termination proceeding. AFFIRMED.

Jeffery A. Wright of Carr & Wright, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Scott D. Fisher of Fisher Law Firm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellee 

father.

Ethan P. Anderson, Norwalk, for minor child.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Tabor, J., and Eisenhauer, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013).
2

EISENHAUER, S.J.

A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights. She 

contends the evidence failed to prove she abandoned the child or that 

termination is in the best interest of the child. We conclude the district court 

properly terminated the mother’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment 

under Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2011). We conclude termination of the 

mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child. We affirm.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings.

Bryan and Jessica are the parents of a child, born in November 2009. At 

birth, Jessica intended to allow the child to be adopted, and the child lived with 

the proposed adoptive parents until April 2010. On learning of the birth Bryan 

refused to consent to termination of his parental rights and the adoption fell 

through. The child then lived with Jessica and her two older children.

Jessica and the children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of 

Human Services in May 2010 because the two older children, who were then 

ages four and two, repeatedly left the home without Jessica’s knowledge. All 

three children were removed from Jessica’s care on May 27, 2010. The child in 

this case was placed in the care of Bryan. The child was adjudicated to be in 

need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 232 (2009).

Bryan sought and obtained concurrent jurisdiction and initiated an action 

to establish paternity, custody, and physical care. The district court on May 17, 

2011, granted Bryan sole legal custody and physical care of the child. Jessica 

was granted visitation and ordered to pay child support of $110 per month. This 
3

decision was modified on December 2, 2011, to provide Jessica would have 

supervised, non-overnight visitation with the child at Bryan’s discretion.

The last time Jessica had contact with the child was at the child’s birthday 

party in November 2011 at Bryan’s house. She has not had contact with Bryan 

since March 2012. Furthermore, Jessica was not current in her child support 

obligation. From December 2011 until February 2013, she paid a total of 

$128.91.

On November 7, 2012, Bryan filed a petition seeking to terminate 

Jessica’s parental rights under sections 600A.8(3)(b), 600A.8(4), 600A.8(5), and 

600A.8(6) (2011). A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed. The GAL 

recommended termination of Jessica’s parental rights. A termination hearing 

was held on March 20, 2013. Jessica testified she had asked for visitation with 

the child several times, but Bryan would not agree to the visitation. She stated 

she had not been able to pay child support because she did not have a job until 

shortly before the hearing.

The district court entered an order terminating Jessica’s parental rights on 

the ground of abandonment under section 600A.8(3)(b). The court determined it 

was Jessica’s own lack of interest preventing her from having meaningful contact 

with the child. The court found it was virtually undisputed she failed to maintain 

regular communication with the child and Bryan. The court found in addition to 

lack of contact, Jessica had not financially supported the child. The court 

determined termination of Jessica’s parental rights was in the child’s best 

interest. Jessica appeals.
4

II. Standard of Review.

Our review in matters pertaining to termination of parental rights under 

Iowa Code chapter 600A is de novo. In re D.E.E., 472 N.W.2d 628, 629 (Iowa 

Ct. App. 1991). In cases in equity, we give weight to the factual findings of the 

district court, especially considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not 

bound by them. Iowa R. App P. 6.904(3)(g). In termination proceedings, our 

paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. Iowa Code § 600A.1

III. Abandonment.

Jessica contends the district court improperly found she had abandoned 

her child. She claims her failure to have contact with the child was due to the 

actions of Bryan. She states she repeatedly attempted to see the child and 

Bryan repeatedly prevented her from doing so.1

Section 600A.8(3)(b) provides as follows:

If the child is six months of age or older when the termination 

hearing is held, a parent is deemed to have abandoned the child 

unless the parent maintains substantial and continuous or repeated 

contact with the child as demonstrated by contribution toward 

support of the child of a reasonable amount, according to the 

parent’s means, and as demonstrated by any of the following:

(1) Visiting the child at least monthly when physically and 

financially able to do so and when not prevented from doing so by 

the person having lawful custody of the child.

(2) Regular communication with the child or with the 

person having the care or custody of the child, when physically and 

financially unable to visit the child or when prevented from visiting 

the child by the person having lawful custody of the child.

 

1

 Jessica also claims Bryan had not shown she had the intent to abandon her child. 

Section 600A.8(3)(c) provides, “The subjective intent of the parent, whether expressed 

or otherwise, unsupported by evidence of acts specified in paragraph ‘a’ or ‘b’ 

manifesting such intent, does not preclude a determination that the parent has 

abandoned the child.” See In re W.W., 826 N.W.2d 706, 710 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012). 

Thus, a parent’s subjective intent, stating alone, will not preclude termination of the 

parent’s parental rights.
5

(3) Openly living with the child for a period of six months 

within the one-year period immediately preceding the termination of 

parental rights hearing and during that period openly holding 

himself or herself out to be the parent of the child.

The legislature has defined the phrase “to abandon a minor child” to mean

a parent, putative father, custodian, or guardian rejects the duties 

imposed by the parent-child relationship, guardianship, or 

custodianship, which may be evinced by the person, while being 

able to do so, making no provision or making only a marginal effort 

to provide for the support of the child or to communicate with the 

child.

Iowa Code § 600A.2(19).

“Parental responsibility demands ‘affirmative parenting to the extent it is 

practicable and feasible under the circumstances.’” In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125, 

130 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (quoting In re Goettsche, 311 N.W.2d 104, 106 (Iowa 

1981)). Where a parent having physical care of the child has prevented the other 

parent from exercising visitation, the non-custodial parent is required to maintain 

regular communication with the child or the child’s custodian. Iowa Code 

§ 600A.8(3)(b)(2); G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 130.

Even if we accepted Jessica’s claim Bryan prevented her from having 

visitation with the child, Jessica did not maintain regular communication with the 

child or with Bryan. At the time of the termination hearing in March 2013, Jessica 

had not had contact with the child since November 2011 and had not had contact 

with Bryan since March 2012. We conclude Jessica made only a marginal effort, 

at best, to maintain regular communication with the child and Bryan. We 

conclude the district court properly terminated Jessica’s parental rights on the 

ground of abandonment under section 600A.8(3)(b).
6

IV. Best Interests.

Jessica claims termination of her parental rights is not in the best interest 

of the child. She asserts there is a strong bond between her and the child and it 

would be detrimental to the child to terminate her parental rights.

As noted above, in termination proceedings under chapter 600A our 

paramount consideration is the best interest of the child. Iowa Code § 600A.1. 

Furthermore,

The best interest of a child requires that each biological 

parent affirmatively assume the duties encompassed by the role of 

being a parent. In determining whether a parent has affirmatively 

assumed the duties of a parent, the court shall consider, but is not 

limited to consideration of, the fulfillment of financial obligations, 

demonstration of continued interest in the child, demonstration of 

genuine effort to maintain communication with the child, and 

demonstration of the establishment and maintenance of a place of 

importance in the child’s life.

Id.

We conclude termination of Jessica’s parental rights is in the best interest 

of the child. She has not fulfilled her financial obligations to the child. She had 

not contacted the child’s caretaker, Bryan, for about one year, which shows she 

does not have a continued interest in the child. Jessica had no contact with the 

child for over one year, which does not demonstrate a genuine effort to maintain 

communication with the child. In addition, there was no evidence she maintained 

a place of importance in the child’s life. It is difficult to accept Jessica’s 

contention she has a strong bond with the child when the child only lived with her 

for about a month and has had such little contact with her since. 
7

We determine the district court properly terminated Jessica’s parental 

rights under chapter 600A.

AFFIRMED.