Court Opinion

ID: 9901260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 16:06:50.77513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:34.492758
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                      No. 23-1477
                               Filed November 21, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF A.V.,
Minor Child,

W.V., Father,
      Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District

Associate Judge.

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

         Bryan J. Tingle, Des Moines, for appellant father.

         Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

         Elizabeth Hadwiger, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

         Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Mullins, S.J.*

         *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023).
                                         2

MULLINS, Senior Judge.

       A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child—born in

2018—under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (g) (2023).1 He argues the

State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing

evidence.2

       Our review is de novo. In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 168 (Iowa 2021). Our

primary consideration is the best interests of the child, In re J.E., 723

N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006), the defining elements of which are the child’s safety

and need for a permanent home. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).

       A de novo review of the record discloses the following pertinent facts. The

child was removed from parental custody in April 2022. While the main issue at

that time was the mother’s alcohol abuse, recent bouts of domestic violence

between the parents with the father as the aggressor were also a concern. The

father was no stranger to the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services

when the child was removed. He has an extensive history of assaultive and

abusive behavior including domestic violence against significant others as well

1 The mother’s rights were not terminated.   Permanency as it relates to the mother
was continued, apparently because her attorney was “recovering from a serious
medical emergency.”
2 In passing, the father also states “the juvenile court clearly erred by determining

that the State had provided reasonable efforts to reunify [the child] with [him].”
Beyond that, the father offers no further argument. Because the father does not
supply a freestanding substantive argument on this issue, we deem it waived. See
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (“A broad, all encompassing
argument is insufficient to identify error in cases of de novo review.”); L.N.S. v.
S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699, 703 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (“Where a party has failed to
present any substantive analysis or argument on an issue, the issue has been
waived.”); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3).
                                          3

as physical and emotional abuse of his own children and others.3 The father has

had his parental rights terminated to five other children due to those issues. 4

       Over the last three decades, the father has amassed various charges for

disorderly conduct, assault of various levels, harassment, child endangerment,

and other crimes. This included a conviction for domestic abuse assault against

the mother in the year before removal. The father completed the Iowa Domestic

Abuse Program as a condition of his probation for that conviction. Despite the

completion of that program, his aggressive behavior toward the mother continued,

both before and after removal. The father’s behavior ultimately resulted in the

juvenile court entering a no-contact order between the parents in October 2022.

In December, the father was arrested for assaulting his aunt. The child has

verbalized her fear of the father as a result of witnessing him abuse the mother.

       Despite the father’s significant history of assaultive behavior and his

participation in SafeCare and Caring Dads during this proceeding, the father has

never meaningfully taken accountability for his actions and, as a result, has no

insight into the effects of his abusive behaviors. The father did attend seven or

3 Past founded allegations of abuse against the father are disturbing.   Some of the
more disturbing incidents involved the father shoving a fork down a child’s throat,
beating a child with a vacuum hose leaving welts, dragging a child across the room
by her hair, physically beating children about the face, cutting a child’s finger with
a knife and threatening to cut the finger clean off, beating children with a belt
buckle, dunking a child’s head into a feces-filled toilet and prying her mouth open
so feces would go in her mouth, making one child eat jalapeno peppers as
punishment, making one child watch another child eat vomit, placing a plastic bag
over a child’s head to restrict breathing as punishment, burning children with
lighters, and forcing children to engage in physical combat against one another.
There were also allegations of sexual abuse.
4 The father’s rights were terminated to three children in 2003 and then two other

children in 2014.
                                           4

eight mental-health therapy sessions spread across the year leading up to the

termination hearing. While the therapist testified the father has opened up about

some of his history of domestic violence during sessions, the therapist explained

it “definitely took some work” to get the father to open up, and getting the father to

acknowledge the totality of his actions was still a work in progress.           Cross-

examination revealed the father has self-reported only limited details about his

domestic violence to the therapist. And the therapist agreed he had no knowledge

about the disturbing acts of child abuse the father has committed in the past. While

the family-centered-services worker testified visits went well and she didn’t have

any concerns about the father, she also agreed she did not know any details about

the father’s history, the specifics of the case, or the father’s progress with services.

       The department formally recommended the initiation of termination

proceedings in February 2023, given the father’s ongoing “cycle of domestic

violence and physical abuse.” The State filed its petition in April, and a hearing

was held over two days in July. As noted, the juvenile court terminated the father’s

rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (g).

       Turning back to the father’s challenge to the sufficiency of evidence

supporting the grounds for termination, we may affirm termination “on any ground

that we find supported by clear and convincing evidence.”            In re D.W., 791

N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). Focusing on section 232.116(1)(f), the father only

challenges the State’s establishment of the final element—that the child could not

be returned to his custody at the time of the termination hearing. See Iowa Code

§ 232.116(1)(f)(4); D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 (interpreting the statutory language

“at the present time” to mean “at the time of the termination hearing”).
                                          5

       The father argues “[t]he State produced no current evidence to suggest that

[the child] could not be returned to” his custody, since “[t]he State simply tried to

rely on [his] history and thus the façade of the potential abuse the child might suffer

if she were in [his] custody.” To begin, the father never progressed beyond fully-

supervised visits, and he offers no argument that he should have. 5 So it would

defy logic to conclude that the child could be returned to his custody at the present

time. See, e.g., In re S.L., No. 19-0107, 2019 WL 1055689, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.

Mar. 6, 2019) (finding failure to progress past fully-supervised visits supported

termination); In re M.C., No. 18-0875, 2018 WL 6418760, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App.

Dec. 5, 2018) (same); In re B.L.-F., No. 11-0558, 2011 WL 4953038, at *1 (Iowa

Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2011) (same).

       Even more problematic, the father’s assaultive behavior has transcended

time. While the father has gone through the motions with services aimed at

domestic violence, the record shows he has not meaningfully addressed those

issues and he has wholly failed to take accountability for his actions. See In re

P.C., No. 17-1848, 2018 WL 1433654, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018)

(concluding child could not be returned to parental custody where “father failed to

participate ‘in any services to meaningfully address domestic violence issues’ and

failed to take ‘accountability for [his] behaviors.’” (alteration in original)). The

father’s refusal to “acknowledge and recognize” his history of domestic and child

5  While he passively complains his supervised visits were not increased in
frequency, he does not argue he should have progressed to anything beyond fully-
supervised visitation.
                                          6

abuse is evidence that no “meaningful change” has occurred. See In re H.R.K, 433

N.W.2d 46, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988).

       We agree with the juvenile court that the child could not be returned to the

father’s custody at the time of the termination hearing. Consequently, we affirm

the termination of the father’s parental rights.

       AFFIRMED.