IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0304

Filed July 22, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF O.B.,

Minor Child,

S.C., Mother,

Petitioner-Appellee,

J.B., Father,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District 

Associate Judge.

A father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor 

child. AFFIRMED.

Susan R. Stockdale, West Des Moines, for appellant father.

Amy K. Davis of Babich Goldman, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee mother.

Laura Lockwood of Hartung Schroeder LLP, Des Moines, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor child.

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

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

J.B. appeals from the termination of his parental rights with respect to minor 

child O.B. We find termination to be warranted under Iowa Code sections 

600A.8(3)(b) and 600A.8(4) (2019), and we affirm.

Background Facts and Proceedings 

S.C. is the mother and J.B. is the father of minor child O.B, born in 2011. 

In 2015, S.C. filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to J.B. The parties’ 

stipulation was approved by a dissolution decree in January 2016. At the time of 

the divorce, J.B. owned a framing and construction business. He closed the 

business in 2017 and worked sporadically in 2018. In 2019, he worked for part of 

the year as a project manager for a construction company.

On June 18, 2019, S.C. filed a petition seeking to terminate J.B.’s parental 

rights on the grounds of abandonment, pursuant to Iowa Code section 

600A.8(3)(b), and lack of financial support, pursuant to section 600A.8(4). 

When service of the petition was attempted, J.B. brandished a firearm and 

threatened the process server, pointing the weapon at the process server’s chest. 

J.B., in demonstrating to the process server that he was taking the safety off the 

weapon, inquired of the process server’s knowledge of Double 00 Buck and what 

it would do to a human body. J.B. is a felon, and his possession of the firearm was 

unlawful, as was his possession of several other firearms. He was arrested and 

granted pretrial release. Following violations of the conditions of his pretrial 

release, he was incarcerated in October 2019. As of January 13, 2020, J.B. owed 

$12,705.20 in child support. A hearing on the petition to terminate J.B.’s parental 

rights was held on January 17. The district court found that J.B.’s parental rights 
3

should be terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 600A.8(3)(b) and 600A.8(4). 

J.B. appeals from this January 21, 2020 order terminating his parental rights. 

Standard of Review

“Private termination proceedings under chapter 600A are reviewed de 

novo.” In re B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Iowa 2020). “Although we are not 

bound by them, we give weight to the trial court’s findings of fact, especially when 

considering credibility of witnesses.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). 

Discussion

“Private termination proceedings under Iowa Code chapter 600A are a twostep process.” B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at232. First, the petitioner “must first prove by 

clear and convincing evidence the grounds for ordering termination of parental 

rights.” Id. Second, the petitioner “must prove by clear and convincing evidence 

that termination is in the best interest of [the child].” Id. 

Here, the district court found termination was warranted under sections 

600A.8(3)(b) and 600A.8(4). We first consider whether clear and convincing 

evidence supports these statutory grounds.

A. Abandonment

We begin by examining the statutory language for abandonment under 

section 600A.8(3)(b), which provides,

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.
4

(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.

(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 evidence shows J.B. did not visit the child at least monthly when able 

to do so, was not in regular communication with the child or the mother, and did 

not live with the child for a period of six months prior to the termination hearing. 

We agree with the district court’s determination that J.B. abandoned the child 

within the meaning of section 600A.8(3)(b).

The district court found J.B. “failed to maintain any kind of regular contact 

with the child for almost five years.” This finding is supported by clear and 

convincing evidence. S.C. testified that J.B. has attempted to have a visit with O.B. 

“two, maybe three times” since the January 2016 dissolution decree. When asked 

at the hearing whether he had had any visitation with his daughter since the 

divorce, J.B. responded “I have not had any.” J.B. testified, “I wouldn’t be 

surprised” if O.B. had no significant memories of him, saying it was “[d]efinitely 

partly my fault, mostly,” and “the situation we’re in has definitely been because of 

my actions.”

J.B. attributes his lack of presence in O.B.’s life to a lack of knowledge of 

S.C.’s whereabouts, which he alleges prevented him from taking advantage of 

visitation with O.B. Although he was unaware at times of S.C.’s whereabouts, J.B. 

neglected to seek out contact information from S.C.’s parents despite having the 

ability to contact them via phone and mail.
5

J.B. further argues he was unable to conduct his visitation because the 

persons selected by S.C. to supervise the visitation were hostile toward him. S.C. 

approved of her parents supervising J.B.’s visitation and refused to approve J.B.’s 

mother as a supervisor. The stipulation and decree gave S.C. the power to 

approve a supervisor for J.B.’s visitation, and J.B. agreed to that provision. On 

appeal, he attacks neither the validity of the stipulation and decree nor the 

supervision provision. J.B.’s balking at visitation supervised by S.C.’s parents is 

not good cause for failing to take advantage of visitation opportunities. He testified 

that he “had to swallow my pride” to “go over there and be in their home and have 

a relationship with my daughter.” However, his discomfort with the conditions of 

the stipulation and decree does not alter the abandonment of his relationship with 

his daughter.

J.B. acknowledges that his parental shortcomings, including his failure to 

seek visitation, may be attributable at least in part to his mental-health issues. He 

acknowledged diagnoses for bipolar disorder, massive depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, severe alcoholism, and anxiety and panic disorder. He 

received inpatient treatment for alcoholism in 2017, twice in 2018, and once in 

2019. J.B. has a lengthy criminal history. 

Despite his mental-health and substance-abuse issues, J.B. was able to 

work and make some, though not all, of the required child support payments in 

2016 and 2017, during which time his efforts to connect with O.B. were negligible. 

His testimony at the hearing indicated he avoided visits with O.B. supervised by 

S.C.’s parents because he found their criticism of his substance-abuse issues to 

be overly hostile.
6

After years of scant efforts to contact O.B., J.B. responded to being served 

in the instant matter by threatening the life of the process server. J.B. admitted to 

alcohol use on September 8, 2019, despite the conditions of his pretrial release 

that required he abstain from the use of alcohol. He again violated his pretrial 

release conditions in early October, and criminal charges were filed on October 3

related to that violation. 

We agree with the district court’s determination that J.B. has abandoned 

O.B. within the meaning of section 600A.8(3)(b), and we affirm its decision on that 

ground.

B. Financial Support

Termination may occur under section 600A.8(4) when: “A parent has been 

ordered to contribute to the support of the child or financially aid in the child’s birth 

and has failed to do so without good cause.”

The stipulation and decree required J.B. to provide child support for O.B. in 

the amount of $469.43 per month beginning January 1, 2016. J.B. was also 

ordered to pay medical support in the amount of $145.83 per month beginning 

January 1, 2016. J.B. did not fulfill his financial obligations under the stipulation 

and decree of dissolution of marriage. Instead of monthly payments, records show 

the father made only two payments in 2019, three in 2018, ten in 2017, and seven 

in 2016. J.B. testified to starting employment as a project manager for a 

construction company in April 2019, yet he made no child support payment until 

July 29, 2019, approximately one month after he was served with the termination 

petition. With respect to his employment in 2018, J.B. testified that he “definitely 
7

had the opportunity” to qualify for employment in jobs outside the construction 

industry but only held “some odd jobs” in 2018.

J.B. acknowledged that he had the opportunity to seek additional work but 

did not. He also made no contributions to O.B.’s support in the portions of 2019 

during which he worked. Under these circumstances, there was not good cause 

for his failure to provide financial support to the child. We thus affirm the district 

court’s finding under section 600A.8(4). 

C. Best Interests

The court found that termination is in O.B.’s best interest. J.B. does not 

argue on appeal that termination is not in O.B.’s best interest, waiving this 

argument. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3). However, we will not affirm 

termination unless we find that termination is in the child’s best interests. See 

B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232. Here, we find termination to be in O.B.’s best interests. 

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 a 

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.

Iowa Code § 600A.1(2).

Over O.B.’s life, her father has sought a minimal amount of visitation with 

her. He has not exercised visitation with his daughter in four and a half years—

over half of the child’s life. He is a stranger to his daughter. J.B. attributes this 

failure to his discomfort with aspects of supervised visitation that he agreed to in 

the dissolution stipulation and decree. Under these circumstances, we cannot say 
8

J.B. has demonstrated “a genuine effort to maintain communication” with O.B., nor 

that he has maintained “a place of importance” in her life. See id. J.B. 

acknowledged in his testimony that it would not be fair to O.B. to make her wait for 

her father to be sober. O.B.’s stepfather has assumed the paternal role in the 

child’s life. We agree with the district court’s finding that termination is in O.B.’s 

best interests.

Conclusion

We find that J.B. has abandoned O.B. and failed to provide financial support 

within the meaning of chapter 600A. We conclude termination is in O.B.’s best 

interests, and we therefore affirm the termination of J.B.’s parental rights with 

respect to minor child O.B.

AFFIRMED.