IN THE INTEREST OF S.C., Minor Child, S.C., Father, Appellant
This decision is published in table format in the North Western Reporter.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge. A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.
Brett H. Schilling of Schilling Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Kasey E. Wadding, County Attorney, for appellee State.
Heather A. Prendergast of Roberts, Stevens, Prendergast and Guthrie, P.L.L.C., Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for appellee minor child.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
The father appeals the termination of his parental rights. We conduct a de novo review of termination of parental rights proceedings. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 745 (Iowa 2011).
S.C. was born in May 2009. The child was involved in child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings in 2009-10. The father did not participate then in services. The child was again adjudicated a CINA in September 2012. The child has never lived with the father. The father testified he has seen the child about ten times during the child's lifetime. According to social worker, Melisa Lammers, the father has not seen the child since 2010. The father pays some minimal child support. He has not participated in any services during these CINA proceedings. Though he expressed an interest in visitation in May 2013, he did not follow through. The petition to terminate parental rights was filed on October 11, 2013. The father contacted Ms. Lammers on October 15, 2013, to express his objection to the petition to terminate his parental rights.
The child is living with the maternal aunt and uncle, who have adopted a half-sibling, and who have started the process to adopt S.C. The child is doing well in that placement.
On December 3, 2013, the father's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) and (e) (2013). He now appeals, contending there is not clear and convincing evidence he intended to abandon his child or that he failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact. He also argues termination is not in the child's best interests under section 232.116(2), and further, the court should have declined to terminate his parental rights under section 232.116(3)(a).
Iowa Code subsection 232.116(1)(e)(3) provides:
For the purposes of this subparagraph, " significant and meaningful contact" includes but is not limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain communication with ...