Opinion
No. 2-742 / 02-0449
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, James A. McGlynn, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court's dismissal of his petition to terminate the mother's parental rights under Iowa Code section 600A.8 (2001). AFFIRMED.
Eric Borseth of Borseth, Genest Siebrecht, Altoona, for appellant.
Dan Wilmouth of Legal Services Corporation of Iowa, Des Moines, for appellee-mother.
Jane Wright, Webster City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
A father appeals the juvenile court's dismissal of his petition to terminate the mother's parental rights under Iowa Code section 600A.8 (2001). He claims termination was in the children's best interests. We affirm.
Douglas and Melissa are the parents of Damien, born in September 1988; Daniel, born in September 1992; and Margaret, born in May 1994. The parties were divorced in November 1995. Under the terms of the dissolution decree, the parties had joint custody of the children, with Douglas having physical care. Melissa was ordered to pay child support of $150 per month.
Melissa has had problems maintaining full-time employment. She moved frequently and had several different jobs. She failed to fully and timely pay her child support obligation. Much of what she paid was the result of income tax refunds being attached or income withholding. Melissa maintained regular contact with the children. However, the children were sometimes returned to Douglas dirty and hungry. In addition, Melissa was the subject of a founded child abuse report involving Daniel. After this, Douglas permitted Melissa only supervised visitation. Douglas has remarried and his new wife, Barbara, is interested in adopting the children.
On May 3, 2001, Douglas filed a petition seeking to terminate Melissa's parental rights. Douglas did not cite any particular Code sections. However, the juvenile court determined Melissa abandoned the children by failing to support them under sections 600A.8(3) and (5). At the time of the termination hearing, Melissa owed $3061 in child support. The court went on to find that termination of Melissa's parental rights was not in the children's best interests. The court found the ultimate sanction, termination, was not the best solution in this case. The court stated, "because of her neglect and abuse of the children, it may well be that a modification of the divorce decree to provide for sole custody with the father, and limited, supervised visitation for the mother would be appropriate." The court also noted that the guardian ad litem objected to termination. In addition, the juvenile court stated:
We note these children were never adjudicated children in need of assistance and that the provisions of chapter 232 do not apply in this case.
Moreover, for the last year the father, in violation of the provisions of the dissolution of marriage decree, has denied the mother visitation with the children unless it was supervised to his satisfaction. This action on the father's part limited the amount of visitation, and as a result, limited the amount and quality of communication. No matter how well-intentioned and well-reasoned the father's actions may have been, nevertheless, they were contrary to the mother's rights under the decree.
Douglas filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). The court found Douglas's complaints of neglect and abuse were overstated. The court also determined the children had a relationship with Melissa, and that in balancing the factors present, "the best interest of the children would not be served by termination of the mother's parental rights in this case." Douglas appeals.
Appellate review of termination proceedings is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. In these cases, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, we give weight to the fact findings of the juvenile court, but are not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( g).
Once a ground for termination under section 600A.8 has been established by clear and convincing evidence, we must consider whether it is in the children's best interests to order termination of parental rights. In re J.L.W., 523 N.W.2d 622, 624 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). We look at a child's long-range, as well as immediate, interests. In re C.M.W., 503 N.W.2d 874, 875 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). Douglas has the burden to show termination is in the children's best interests. See In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 602 (Iowa 1998).
We agree with the juvenile court's conclusion that termination of Melissa's parental rights is not in the children's best interests. Melissa is not seeking physical care of the children. She wants only to continue having contact with the children through telephone calls, letters and e-mail, and periodic visitation. Melissa agreed to continue supervised visitation, even though it was imposed by Douglas and not the court. Douglas has not shown this continued contact with their mother is harmful to the children. As the juvenile court noted, "some of the emotional distance between the children and the mother is due to the drastically reduced contact . . . due to the father's unauthorized restrictions on the mother's visitation rights." We also note the juvenile court found Douglas's complaints of neglect and abuse were overstated, and that the guardian ad litem objected to termination.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.