Opinion
No. 5-819 / 05-1580
Filed November 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Carla Pearson of Glasson, Sole, McManus Pearson, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold L. Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
David Nadler of Johnston Nathanson, Cedar Rapids, for children.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
In this appeal from a ruling terminating a father's parental rights to his two children, the father argues: (1) termination is not warranted "where the less extreme legal protection of ordering no contact with minor children was working completely" and (2) the children's best interests are not served "when the only practical change effected by the termination action would be to cease appellant's obligation to support the children." We believe both issues trigger a best interests analysis. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (stating the primary consideration is the children's best interests).
Devin, born in 1991, and Brittany, born in 1992, were removed from their parents' home in 2000 after they gave the Department of Human Services "a detailed account" of sexual abuse by their father, Layton. The children provided this account just months after Layton discharged a prison sentence for sexually abusing the children's mother. There was evidence the children were abused before their father was imprisoned and after he was released.
At a dispositional hearing later in 2000, the juvenile court summarized the evidence of sex abuse as well as the adverse effects of that abuse on the children. The court stated, "[T]he Court does believe that these children have been the victims of sexual abuse and that their father is the perpetrator of that abuse."
In the intervening years, Layton moved to Ohio and married a woman with a young daughter. In 2004, an Ohio jury determined that Layton sexually abused his stepdaughter. The jury found him guilty of "gross sexual imposition" and rape, and an Ohio district court sentenced him to an eight-year prison term. Layton was serving that sentence at the time of the termination hearing.
In addressing whether termination was in the children's best interests, the juvenile court stated,
Devin and Brittany have asked to legally sever their relationship with their father. They would like to be adopted by their stepfather. Considering the level of harm inflicted upon the children by [Layton], his status as a sexual predator, and his ongoing incarceration for the sexual assault of another child, the Court finds that the children's request should be granted. Termination of the legal parent child relationship between [Layton] and Devin and Brittany is in the best interest of these children.
On our de novo review of the record, we fully concur in this assessment. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the fact that termination will deprive the children of their father's financial support. We conclude this consideration is outweighed by the physical and emotional trauma Layton inflicted.
We affirm the termination of Layton's parental rights to Devin and Brittany.
AFFIRMED.