IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0381

Filed April 29, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF G.G., D.G., M.G., P.G., and C.G.,

Minor Children,

F.G., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District 

Associate Judge.

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

Shawna L. Ditsworth, Spirit Lake, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Toby J. Gordon, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Shannon Sandy of Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and May, JJ.
2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

The father’s parental rights to his five children were terminated based upon 

his sexual abuse of P.G.1 and failure to engage in any services ordered by the 

juvenile court other than two supervised visits per month with some of his children. 

He now appeals the termination of his parental rights.2 

The father does not dispute the existence of grounds for termination.3 See 

In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (noting that we need not address the 

grounds for termination if not challenged). Rather, he asserts the juvenile court 

erred in not transferring guardianship of the children to their paternal 

grandmother’s custody. 

The juvenile court has provided a detailed and thorough opinion and has 

addressed the request for a guardianship. The court wrote:

A home study of [the grandmother’s] home was not approved and 

there is no reason to believe an approval would result from any 

supplemental home study. The reports filed herein reflect serious 

behavioral concerns regarding these children, of which both [the 

father] and [the grandmother] are apparently oblivious. Those 

behaviors have resulted in separate placements for the children 

because of concerns regarding the exacerbation of those behaviors 

when they have been placed together in different permutations.

There is no reason to believe placement of any one of the children 

with [the grandmother] would be in that child’s best interests, much 

less placement of all five. To the contrary, [the grandmother’s] lack 

of belief of [P.G.’s] allegations and the reports of mental health 

professionals and service providers support a conclusion that such 

placement would be to the detriment of these children. As placement 

 

1 The father was subsequently convicted of second-degree sexual abuse, 

lascivious acts with a child, and incest. He was sentenced to a term of 

incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years with a seventy percent mandatory 

minimum. 

2 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated, and she does not appeal.

3 The court terminated the father’s parental rights to D.G., M.G., P.G., and C.G. 

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (o) (2019), and terminated 

the father’s parental rights to G.G. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (o). 
3

with [the grandmother] would be inappropriate, and no children are 

placed with any relative, no grounds exist to decline to terminate 

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(3).

Upon our de novo review, see In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014), 

we adopt the juvenile court’s finding that a guardianship with the grandmother is 

not in the children’s best interests. We find no reason to disturb the court’s ruling 

terminating the father’s parental rights. We therefore affirm in all respects without 

further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e).

AFFIRMED.