Opinion
No. 3-430 / 02-1310.
Filed June 25, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Thomas L. Koehler, Judge.
The mother of minor child R.F.Z. appeals a district court ruling denying her petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's natural father. AFFIRMED.
Fred Stiefel, Victor, for appellant-mother.
Sally Peck, Iowa City, for appellee-father.
Dennis Mathahs, Marengo, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht, and Eisenhauer, JJ.
The mother of minor child R.Z.F., Chris G., appeals a district court ruling denying her petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's natural father Steve F. pursuant to Iowa Code sections 600A.2(18) and 600A.8(5) (2001). The mother contends Steve's parental rights should be terminated because (1) he has abandoned the child, and (2) has failed to financially support the child. We review her claims de novo. See In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 691 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000). We give weight to the trial court's findings of fact, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( g).
Chris asserts Steve's parental rights should be terminated because he abandoned Ryan. Pursuant to section 600A.2(18), abandonment may be shown by (1) a parent making limited or no provisions for the child's support, and (2) failing to have any communications with the child. Termination for abandonment requires clear and convincing evidence the parent relinquished his parental rights and responsibilities accompanied by an intent to forego them. Iowa Code § 600A.8. Parental responsibility demands more than merely maintaining a subjective interest in the child, but requires affirmative parenting to the extent it is practicable and feasible under the circumstances. In re Goettsche, 311 N.W.2d 104, 105 (Iowa 1981).
In the present case we conclude Chris has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Steve abandoned Ryan. Both parties contributed toward the breakdown of visitation by filing numerous contempt actions against each other. When Steve called to request visitation, Chris on several occasions simply stated "No" and hung up. Although Chris stated no negative comments about Steve were permitted in her home, she also admitted she encouraged Ryan to not view Steve as his father. Despite a Department of Human Services report concluding allegations of child abuse against Steve were unfounded, Chris refused to allow Steve visitation and contemporaneously filed a contempt action against him based on the allegations. She declined to provide Steve with Ryan's athletic or music lesson schedules despite Steve's request. Although she testified she has never received Steve's address or telephone numbers, Chris later admitted she was aware of Steve's residence. She also failed to contact Ryan's paternal grandparents despite knowing their address and telephone number.
Steve had opportunities to request visitation but failed to do so based on claims of depression. Instead of seeking contact with his child, Steve decided to go on a three month sabbatical with his church to New York. Steve has not sent any letters, cards, or gifts, since 2000 ostensibly because he didn't believe his efforts would be productive, and would place Ryan in an uncomfortable position of having to defy his mother's preferences. However, Steve's brother, James, testified Steve always had a strong bond with Ryan, and that he witnessed Steve's increasing frustration in having his efforts rebuffed by Chris. Despite these shortcomings, we are not persuaded these actions represented Steve's intent to abandon Ryan. We note with approval the district court's findings concerning the credibility of Chris and her husband and their actions to prohibit contact between Steve and the child. We affirm the district court on this ground.
Chris additionally contends Steve's parental rights should be terminated based on his failure to satisfy his child support obligations. While Steve was seriously injured in an industrial accident and was unemployed for a significant period of time, this does not excuse his failure to regularly pay child support or otherwise seek a modification of his obligation to reflect his disability. In re C.M.W., 503 N.W.2d 874, 876 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). While Steve failed to pay child support for several years, the record is clear he is meeting his current obligations and paying additional sums towards his significant arrearage. Under these circumstances, we find no clear and convincing evidence to terminate Steve's parental rights on this ground. We therefore affirm the district court ruling.