In the Interest of C.P., M.P., and L.P., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0148
Filed January 7, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of C.P., M.P., and L.P., Minor Children,
J.H., Mother,
Petitioner-Appellee,

E.P., Father,
Respondent-Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cherokee County,
The Honorable David C. Larson, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Michael H. Johnson of Johnson Law Firm, PC, Spirit Lake, attorney for
appellant father.

Lisa K. Mazurek of Law Office of Lisa K. Mazurek, P.L.C., Cherokee,
attorney for appellee mother.

Ryan T. Gaskins of Boerner & Goldsmith Law Firm, P.C., Ida Grove,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
_______________

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.

1
BULLER, Judge.

The father appeals the private termination of his parental rights to
three children. On our de novo review, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Around 2012, the mother and father married. They had three1 children
together: C.P., M.P., and L.P., born in 2011, 2012, and 2015, respectively. The
mother and father had a troubled relationship and lived separately on
numerous occasions. They permanently separated in early 2018.

Initially, the children lived with their father for five months. But the
father had a history of substance abuse, and the mother found a lighter and
pipe in his house while the children were staying with him. That day, the
children moved in with the mother and her now-husband, and the father
admitted himself into a rehabilitation program. The mother reported the
incident to law enforcement, and the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) became involved with the family.

In fall 2018, HHS launched a child abuse assessment resulting in a
founded report against the father for exposing the children to dangerous
substances. And in October, the children were adjudicated as children in need
of assistance (CINAs) and placed in the mother’s custody. The father was
granted visitation subject to the discretion of HHS and the children’s
attorney and guardian ad litem (GAL). The father fully exercised his
visitation rights throughout the CINA proceedings.

The mother and father formalized their separation in a dissolution of
marriage decree in late 2019. The court granted the father visits at the

1
A fourth child, biologically unrelated to the father, is not at issue.

2
discretion of the mother dependent on his sobriety. Between 2020 and 2022,
the father’s visits became sporadic. In fall 2022, the father petitioned for, and
the court granted, visits on alternating Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., conditioned on supervision by the father’s sister or a professional.

Despite obtaining a definite visitation period, the father continued to
visit sporadically. In November 2023, the father’s last visit ended in an
argument with his sister over her supervisory role in the presence of the
children, with his sister refusing to continue to supervise. The mother
maintained that, because of the argument, the visit was abusive and refused
to allow the sister to supervise further visits out of concern for the children’s
wellbeing. The father contacted professional supervision services, and the
mother completed the required paperwork allowing them to oversee further
visits, but the father claimed the supervision services never responded.

Over the month following the last visit, the father did not
communicate with the children. He attempted to call the children in 2024,
but the telephone conversations were sparse. The mother designated the
father’s call-time between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. every Saturday. But she
later declined about a dozen of the father’s calls because of schedule
conflicts. When the children were available to take calls, they would often tell
the father they did not want to talk with him. The mother testified that the
children made this decision on their own, which the GAL corroborated
through independent interviews. The children refer to the mother’s husband
as “dad,” and he plans to adopt the three children at issue if the father’s
parental rights are terminated.

The mother and her husband both testified that the children
experienced psychological distress whenever the father re-entered their lives.
Two of the children were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder

3
(PTSD) from the father’s prior actions. One of the children’s therapists said
the recommended therapeutic treatment would be ineffective unless the
child ceased contact with the father. Since contact between the father and
children has declined, the mother and husband have perceived emotional
growth in all three children, as well as significant improvements in academic
performance for one of them.

The father owes $21,033.67 in late child support and hasn’t voluntarily
made a payment since 2023. In May 2024, the father’s wages were garnished
twice during a brief stint of employment; he departed from his position
shortly afterward.2 The father claimed he was impoverished and unable to
make contributions because of his inability to maintain employment.

In October, the father was jailed for harassment in the third degree and
interference with official acts; he was released a month later but was again
incarcerated within the week. 3 He admitted to using methamphetamine
during the brief time he was out of jail. And he remained incarcerated up to
the trial in this case.

At trial, the juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to the
three contested children under Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b), (4) (2023).
The father appeals.

2
It is unclear from the record exactly how the father’s employment ended. The
mother asserts he quit. But the father vaguely testified he was unemployed because he
was too honest with his boss about his substance use. He did not elaborate further.
3
The record omits the reason for the father’s second incarceration. While he
testified about his criminal history and a prior eluding charge at trial, the father interrupted
the inquiry with coarse remarks—to put it mildly.

4
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review private termination proceedings de novo. In re B.H.A., 938
N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). While we are not bound by the district court’s
findings of fact, they may inform our analysis and are entitled to weight,
“especially when considering credibility of witnesses.” Id. (citation omitted).
When interpreting chapter 600A, the children’s best interests “shall be the
paramount consideration,” but the parents’ interests “shall be given due
consideration.” Iowa Code § 600A.1(1).

DISCUSSION
“Private termination proceedings under Iowa Code chapter 600A are
a two-step process.” B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d at 232. First, the petitioner must
“prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for ordering
termination of parental rights.” Id. The petitioner must also prove by clear
and convincing evidence termination is in the children’s best interests. Id.
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we
find supported by the record. See Iowa Code § 600A.8; In re B.O.,
No. 23-0330, 2023 WL 6620516, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2023).

The father raises three issues on appeal: whether he abandoned the
children; whether he failed to pay child support without good cause; and
whether termination is in the best interests of the children. We consider each.

I. Abandonment

The father first argues he did not abandon the children within the
meaning of chapter 600A. To establish abandonment, the mother had to
present clear and convincing evidence “the parent for whom termination is
sought has failed to maintain ‘substantial and continuous or repeated contact

5
with the child.’” In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125, 129 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012)
(quoting Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b)). There is both a cash and contact
component to this analysis. See Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b). The cash
component is established by financially contributing to the child in a
reasonable amount consistent with the parent’s means. Id. The contact
component can be shown by
(1) Visiting the child at least monthly when physically and
financially able to do so and when not prevented from doing so by the
person having lawful custody of the child[; or]
(2) Regular communication with the child or with the person
having the care or custody of the child, when physically and financially
unable to visit the child or when prevented from visiting the child by the
person having lawful custody of the child.

Id. § 600A.8(3)(b)(1)–(2). The petitioner needed only to establish one of
these components to prevail. In re J.V., 13 N.W.3d 595, 604 (Iowa 2024).

Beginning with the cash component, the father contends he made
significant monetary contributions. Since 2019, he has paid $51,314.74 in
child support, including garnishments. But the father was also behind
$21,033.67 at the time of termination. In the prior year, his only contributions
were garnishments in May, totaling $541.19. And the father departed his job
shortly after his checks were garnished. He said he had been “living in
poverty,” but did not provide concrete reasons as to why he was unemployed.

The juvenile court found, and we agree, the father can work but
remains unemployed because of his ongoing struggle with methamphetamine
addiction. As the juvenile court observed: “[the father] has been to inpatient
treatment five times, but he continues to use methamphetamine, with his last
reported use being approximately two months [before trial].” While we are
not unsympathetic to the plight of drug addiction, the father could have
voluntarily contributed something to the children in the year before trial; he

6
instead prioritized methamphetamine. Because of his continued drug use,
ability to work, and refusal to make any voluntary child support payments for
more than a year, we reject the father’s contention that he financially
contributed to the children in a reasonable amount consistent with his means.
Cf. In re M.B., No. 22-1915, 2023 WL 7391793, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App.
Nov. 8, 2023) (finding a father failed to contribute a reasonable amount
where he was $11,000 behind in child support and had only recently
contributed to his child through the garnishment of a stimulus check).

Regarding the contact component, the father does not dispute his
failure to maintain monthly visits or contact. Instead, he argues
section 600A.8(3)(b)(2) should apply to preclude termination because he
argues the mother prevented him from seeing the children. But this argument
ignores alternatives available to the father. The mother did not unequivocally
refuse the father visits. Rather, she specifically refused to allow the sister to
supervise the visits because of the prior visitation incident in 2023. The
father still had the option to use professional supervision, and the mother
filled out paperwork for those services.

Instead of affirmatively seeking to exercise and enforce his rights, the
father attempted to deflect accountability for his inaction. He made no
attempt to have his visitation rights enforced by the legal means available to
him. Even if the supervision service did not return his calls, the father was
not “prevented from [visiting his children] by the person having lawful custody
of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b)(1) (emphasis added). We reject
the father’s argument that the mother prevented him from having monthly
contact with the children. Cf. In re N.B., No. 24-0800, 2025 WL 705994,
at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2025) (finding a father failed to maintain
monthly contact with his child, even when the mother restricted his visitation

7
rights, where he made “few attempts to arrange visitation, the mother[ had]
legitimate concerns based on the father’s actions, and the father[] fail[ed] to
establish and enforce his rights by the legal means available” (cleaned up)).

Because both the cash and contact components of the abandonment
analysis are individually dispositive, there is clear and convincing evidence
the father abandoned the children.

II. Failure to Pay Child Support Without “Good Cause”

Second, the father challenges whether he had “good cause” for his
failure to pay child support. Section 600A.8(4) authorizes termination of
parental rights if “[a] parent has been ordered to contribute to the support of
the child . . . and has failed to do so without good cause.” The father admits
to not fulfilling his payment duties but asserts that his impoverishment and
involuntarily unemployment constitute good cause.

As discussed, the father provided no explanation for his
unemployment other than his drug use. He admitted he did not make any
payments, other than what was involuntarily garnished from his checks, since
2023. During the period between his last two incarcerations, with the
termination trial imminent, he chose to prioritize using methamphetamine
rather than attempting to contribute anything to the children. We agree with
the juvenile court that the father’s inaction and misplaced priorities make
clear he did not have good cause for failing to pay child support. See B.O.,
2023 WL 6620516, at *4 (determining a father’s prioritization of drug use
does not constitute good cause for failing to make child support payments).

III. Best Interests

The father last asserts termination is not in the best interests of the
children. The children’s best interests require the parents to “affirmatively

8
assume the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent.” Iowa Code
§ 600A.1(2). This includes “the fulfillment of financial obligations,
demonstration of continued interest in the child, demonstration of a genuine
effort to maintain communication with the child, and demonstration of the
establishment and maintenance of a place of importance in the child’s life.”
Id. In evaluating best interests in a private termination, we may also consult
the statutory best-interest framework in Iowa Code chapter 232. B.H.A., 938
N.W.2d at 232. Applying that framework, we “give primary consideration to
the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term
nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).

On our review, we agree with the juvenile court that termination is in
the children’s best interests. The father has caused various degrees of
emotional and mental distress in the children, including PTSD for two of the
children. One of the children’s therapists said his treatment for PTSD would
be ineffective unless the father was removed from his life. The juvenile court
credited the mother and her husband’s testimony that the children are
happier when the father does not intervene in their lives. The children have
experienced emotional growth and are performing well in school. And the
mother and her husband have provided an environment which has fostered
safety and stability for the children. We affirm the juvenile court’s conclusion
that termination is in the children’s best interests.

DISPOSITION
We affirm termination of the father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

9