IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-0829

Filed August 18, 2021

IN THE INTEREST OF C.B.,

Minor Child,

C.B., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker 

Parry, District Associate Judge.

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

Dean A. Fankhauser of Vriezelaar, Tigges, Edgington, Bottaro, Boden & 

Lessman, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Michelle M. Hynes of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
2

MAY, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, C.B. We 

affirm. 

We review termination proceedings de novo. In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518,

522 (Iowa 2020). We generally use a three-step analysis to review the termination 

of a parent’s rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). Those steps 

include: (1) whether grounds for termination have been established, (2) whether 

termination is in the child’s best interest, and (3) whether we should exercise any 

of the permissive exceptions to termination. Id. at 472–73. “However, if a parent 

does not challenge a step in our analysis, we need not address it.” In re J.P.,

No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020). 

Because the father only appeals the juvenile court’s best-interest 

determination, we limit our review to that step. When making a best-interest 

determination, we “give primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best 

placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the 

physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” In re P.L., 778 

N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(2) (2009)). “It is wellsettled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved 

a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will 

learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” Id. at 41.

The father argues termination is not in C.B.’s best interest because of their 

close bond, his ability to provide long-term care for C.B., and his overall progress. 

We disagree. At the time of the termination hearing, the father was unemployed 

and living in an AmericInn motel. He did not consistently attend his weekly 
3

visitation with C.B. And he struggles with methamphetamine abuse. A recent 

family-centered services progress report noted: 

Honesty and being forthcoming appears to be a struggle for 

[the father]. [The father] is reportedly associating with other active 

drug users and possibly living [with] and dating a female that uses. 

There are continued concerns of [the father] possibly using drugs. 

When [the father] has been present for visits, he struggles with 

paranoia, anxiousness and heavy sweating[,] which leads [the 

caseworker] to believe [the father] is either coming down from using 

or is under the influence. [The father] has been challenged on his 

excuses for inconsistency with treatment or reasons for not going to 

inpatient treatment.

From this information, and our de novo review of the record as a whole, we 

conclude the father cannot provide a safe and nurturing home for two-year-old

C.B., either immediately or in the long-term. And any bond between the father and 

C.B. is not strong enough for us to overlook the safety risks the father poses. 

Termination is in C.B.’s best interest.

We affirm without further opinion. Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), (e).

AFFIRMED.