IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-1634

Filed January 9, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.,

Minor Child,

C.H., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, 

Associate Juvenile Judge.

A father appeals the termination of parental rights to his minor child. 

AFFIRMED.

Joseph G. Martin, Cedar Falls, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Tammy L. Banning of the Juvenile Public Defender Office, Waterloo, 

guardian ad litem for minor child.

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

GREER, Judge.

C.H., the father, appeals the termination of his parental rights to A.C., born 

in October 2017. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) removed the 

child from the parents’ care shortly after birth because of concerns over the 

mother’s mental health and substance abuse.1 DHS placed the child with the 

maternal great-grandmother after removal. No parent ever regained care.

At the time of A.C.’s birth, the father was not in a relationship with the mother

and not involved with the child. The mother told him he was the father soon after 

birth, but then she quickly asserted another man was the father. He complains he 

was unaware he was the father until several months after the birth. Yet in a 

separate proceeding to establish paternity and support, the sheriff’s office certified 

they personally served C.H. in April 2018 with notice alleging he was the father. 

Although he failed to participate, the court found C.H. to be the father and withheld 

his income for A.C.’s support. He testified his brother signed for the notice and he 

never received it, and he believed the child support withheld from his income was 

for another child of his. 

With little progress from the mother, in June 2018 the State filed the petition 

to terminate the parental rights of the mother and C.H. On July 27, C.H. was 

arrested for burglary and possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. He 

testified he learned about the termination proceeding naming him as the father 

while in jail following this arrest.2 On October 22, the juvenile court held a hearing 

 

1 At removal, the mother identified several potential fathers.

2 His “really good friend” purportedly told C.H. that he was possibly the father of 

A.C. in July 2018 when she learned of the juvenile court proceedings.
3

on the matter, and the father participated while in jail on the pending charges. The 

court continued the hearing for the parents to conduct paternity testing. Later that 

day, C.H. pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and the two possession 

charges, and the criminal court imposed a suspended prison sentence and 

probation. 

After testing confirmed C.H. as the father, the termination hearing resumed

on January 30, 2019. The juvenile court deferred permanency for both parents, 

ordered supervised visitation, and required mental-health and substance-abuse 

evaluations and other conditions:

That during the next five months the parents would comply with all 

recommendations for substance abuse and mental health 

counseling, provide random drug tests as requested, regularly attend 

all scheduled visitations and take all prescribed medications. 

Further, the parents shall demonstrate an ability to maintain safe and 

stable housing for the child to return, maintain employment and

follow through with services being offered. Both parents shall 

participate in parent education programming. Both parents shall not 

use illegal substances. 

Persuaded by some positive developments, on June 4 the juvenile court 

again deferred permanency to allow a trial home placement with the father. But 

on June 21, when he provided a urine sample as a condition of his probation, he

tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. Two days later, he 

provided a urine sample to DHS at his request, which tested negative. Because 

of the positive test and a required return to the residential facility for violating

probation, DHS ended the trial home placement and returned the child to the greatgrandmother’s care. On August 15, the juvenile court concluded the termination 
4

hearing. The court issued its September 18 order terminating the rights of both 

parents.3 

The father now appeals the termination of his parental rights. We review 

termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 

526 (Iowa 2019). We give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings, but they 

do not bind us. In re M.D., 921 N.W.2d 229, 232 (Iowa 2018). The paramount 

concern is the child’s best interests. Id.

The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code 

section 232.116(1)(h) (2018).4 He does not contest the statutory grounds for 

termination. Instead, he first argues he should have six more months to work 

toward reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). Tragically, by all accounts

he was progressing well as a parent to A.C. until his positive drug test on June 21, 

2019. This test led to a violation of his terms of probation and the juvenile court’s 

January 30 order that he refrain from using illegal substances. The father’s

voluntary negative drug screen on June 23 does not negate the positive result two 

 

3 The mother initially challenged the termination of her parental rights, but she 

consented to termination during the hearing on August 15. She does not appeal 

the termination of her parental rights.

4 Under section 232.116(1)(h), the court may terminate parental rights if,

The court finds that all of the following have occurred:

(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.

(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child 

cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided 

in section 232.102 at the present time.
5

days earlier. And this drug use follows his history of drug-related criminal activity. 

C.H. has a significant criminal history, including a discharged ten-year prison 

sentence for burglary. Most troubling are his substance-abuse-related offenses. 

Throughout the juvenile proceedings, C.H. denied his guilt for his crimes, denied 

using drugs, and minimized the positive result by claiming his probation officer 

“was kind of confused about why one [test] was positive and the other one was 

negative.” By contrast, a DHS worker testified his probation officer made clear the 

positive drug result was accurate. Simply put, the father has a history of refusing 

to take responsibility for his criminal behavior, including a lack of candor about drug 

use underlying his criminal convictions with that same DHS worker in this 

proceeding. A six-month extension is unlikely to address these concerns.

A.C. has lacked permanency almost since birth in October 2017. The father

did not assert his parental rights until the child was a year old. But he should have 

known his parental status since at least service of the notice of the paternity and 

support proceeding on April 16, 2018, and he should have suspected he was the 

father based on his conversation with the mother soon after birth. A.C. is now over 

two years old and should not continue waiting for permanency. See In re D.S., 

806 N.W.2d 458, 474 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (“We will not gamble with a child’s 

future by asking him to continuously wait for a stable biological parent, particularly 

at such a tender age.”). We agree with denying the father additional time to work 

toward reunification.

Second, the father argues the juvenile court should have established a 

guardianship instead of terminating his parental rights. However, “a guardianship 

is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 
6

477 (Iowa 2018) (quoting In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017)). 

Establishing a guardianship would continue the uncertainty surrounding A.C. since 

birth. While the father raises concerns about the great-grandmother’s ability to 

raise A.C. to adulthood if she were to adopt, the actual adoption choices are 

beyond our consideration in the termination process. DHS will determine suitable 

adoptive parents. We decline to order a guardianship and affirm the termination 

of the father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.