IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-0016

Filed July 22, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.,

Minor Child,

S.D., Mother,

Appellant,

K.M., Father,

Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Timothy T. 

Jarman, District Associate Judge.

The mother appeals the juvenile court’s grant of the father’s petition to 

terminate her parental rights to her daughter, M.M. AFFIRMED.

Zachary S. Hindman of Bikakis, Mayne, Arneson, Hindman & Hisey, Sioux 

City, for appellant.

Kara L. Minnihan of Minnihan Law Firm, Onawa, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2

VOGEL, P.J.

The mother appeals the juvenile court’s grant of the father’s petition to 

terminate her parental rights to her daughter, M.M. She asserts the father failed 

to prove she abandoned M.M. within the meaning of Iowa Code section 

600A.8(3)(b) (2013), and termination is not in M.M.’s best interests. We 

conclude, given the mother has not seen M.M. in approximately five years and 

has made little to no attempt to contact M.M., the father met his burden of proof 

establishing the mother abandoned M.M. Furthermore, the mother has failed to 

meet her child support obligation without good cause, and termination is in 

M.M.’s best interests. Consequently, we affirm the order of the juvenile court 

terminating the mother’s parental rights.

M.M., born December 2004, resides with the father and his wife. She was 

briefly in the mother’s care after she was born. The mother and father have 

never been married but lived together while the mother was pregnant with M.M. 

According to the father, six months after M.M.’s birth, the mother and father left 

their shared residence and moved into the father’s mother’s house. Before M.M. 

was one year old, the mother left, and the father began to care for M.M. full time. 

He testified that before 2010 the mother would see M.M. approximately twice 

each year, and she had never attempted to contact him with regard to visitation. 

The mother last saw M.M. in 2010. At the termination hearing, the 

following exchange occurred with regard to the mother’s visitation of M.M.:

Q: Have you attempted to contact [the father] to set up 

visitation in the last five years? A: Me and [the father] don’t really 

have any communication. It’s been mostly his wife that I message 

on Facebook or she’ll message me. There’s been times where I’ll 

message her just to see how [M.M.] is doing. I haven’t really—I 
3

don’t want to say that I haven’t wanted to see her because I have, 

but I quit making attempts so often a couple years ago because I 

wasn’t getting to see her, and I understand why I wasn’t getting to 

see her, but—

Q: Why weren’t you getting to see her? A: I wasn’t at a point 

in my life where it was good for me to see her.

Q: And so it’s safe to say for the last two years you have not 

attempted to make contact, correct? A: I think the last time I talked 

to [the father’s wife] was probably about two years ago. 

The father’s wife testified she attempted to contact the mother to arrange 

visitation during the first few years of M.M.’s life, but the mother did not reply. 

She also testified the mother did not come to a few arranged visits.

On January 22, 2014, the mother was imprisoned in the Nebraska 

Corrections for Women due to misdemeanor convictions for carrying concealed 

weapons and obstruction of justice. The mother was set to be paroled in August, 

before the termination hearing; however, she was not released. The mother’s 

counsel stated that the mother, “when she was up for parole, I believe [the 

reason the mother was not paroled] was . . . some type of infraction with the 

prison.” The mother anticipated her release date was, as of the termination 

hearing, January 25, 2015, without parole. 

The mother testified she intended to live with her mother after her release. 

She also stated that following M.M.’s birth she was homeless. The mother 

obtained her GED when in prison and her last employment outside of the prison

was in 2011. At the termination hearing, she testified she suffered from a 

substance abuse issue before she was imprisoned. She has never received 

treatment.

The mother has been ordered to pay child support, and she is not current 

regarding that obligation. The Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU) garnishes a 
4

portion of her wages that she receives from working in the prison. Additionally, in 

June 2013, the mother won $25,000 from lottery tickets. The State garnished 

$11,000 from her winnings, which partially satisfied her child support obligation. 

The record establishes the mother has never voluntarily paid child support; 

rather, the child support that has been paid has been due to the CSRU 

recovering money from the mother’s earnings or lottery winnings. According to 

the father’s testimony, she remained six or seven hundred dollars in arrears.

The mother has another child, J.M., who is twelve years old. She resides 

with her biological father. The mother has been in contact with J.M. M.M. does 

not remember her half-sister, J.M., as they have not seen each other since M.M. 

was a young child. The mother testified that J.M. asks about M.M., and she 

wants the sisters to have a relationship. Both M.M.’s father and his wife testified 

they would be willing to facilitate a relationship between J.M. and M.M., even if 

the mother’s rights were terminated.

The father petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights on April 24, 

2014, alleging the mother abandoned M.M. A contested hearing was held on 

October 20, 2014, in which the mother testified by phone from prison. On 

December 11, 2014, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights 

pursuant to Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b). The mother appeals.

We review termination proceedings brought pursuant to Iowa Code 

chapter 600A de novo. In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96, 99 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). 

We are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact, but we accord them 

weight, particularly with regard to its findings on the credibility of witnesses. Id. 

Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. Id.
5

With regard to the standard for the termination of parental rights, Iowa 

Code section 600A.8(3)(b)(1)–(3) states:

The juvenile court shall base its findings and order under 

section 600A.9 on clear and convincing proof. The following shall 

be, either separately or jointly, grounds for ordering termination of 

parental rights:

. . . .

3. The parent has abandoned the child. For the purposes of 

this subsection, a parent is deemed to have abandoned a child as 

follows:

. . . .

b. 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.

(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 record establishes the father has met his burden showing the mother 

abandoned M.M. within the meaning of Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b). As the 

juvenile court noted: “[The mother] has not demonstrated a genuine effort to 

maintain communication with the child in interest. [The mother] has not 

demonstrated the establishment and maintenance of a place of importance in the 

child’s life.” We agree. The mother admitted to not having contact with M.M. for 

the past five years. She further stated it was not in M.M.’s best interests to have 

contact with her given her lifestyle, which included substance abuse, criminal 
6

activity, and homelessness. Therefore, the mother has not maintained 

“substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child as demonstrated

by . . . . 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.” See Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b)(1).

Furthermore, the mother has failed to contribute financial support for M.M. 

voluntarily. The mother remained in arrears at the time of the termination 

hearing, having essentially failed to ever voluntarily contribute money or items 

needed to care for M.M. As the juvenile court noted, the mother’s “inability to pay 

support is the direct result of her choices related to substance abuse and other 

criminal behavior. The court does not find such poor life choices to constitute 

good cause for failing to contribute to the child’s support.” This conclusion is 

supported by the record. Consequently, the father met his burden showing the 

mother has not voluntarily contributed towards support of M.M. and has 

otherwise abandoned M.M. See Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b)(1)–(3).

It is also in M.M.’s best interests that the mother’s rights are terminated. 

The mother admitted to not wanting to be in M.M.’s life for the past five years due 

to her behavior. Nor has the mother demonstrated she could maintain sobriety, 

employment, or a residence when not imprisoned. In determining the future 

actions of the parent, her past conduct is instructive. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 

798 (Iowa 2006); see also In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998)

(“We have repeatedly followed the principle that . . . children should not be forced 

to wait for their parent to grow up.”). We further find it encouraging that M.M. has 

a mother figure in the father’s wife, and that both M.M.’s father and his wife have 
7

indicated they would be open to M.M. establishing a relationship with her halfsister, J.M. The mother acknowledged M.M. is loved by the father and his wife, 

they are “great parents,” and M.M “is good where she is at. She is well taken 

care of.” The record fully supports termination of the mother’s parental rights is

in M.M.’s best interests, and we affirm the order of the juvenile court terminating 

the mother’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.