In the Interest of A.A. and T.A., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1481
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of A.A. and T.A., Minor Children,
T.A., Father,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County,
The Honorable Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Patricia Rolfstad, Davenport, attorney for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Taryn R. McCarthy of Clemens, Walters, Conlon, Runde & Hiatt, L.L.P.,
Dubuque, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.

1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children.1
On appeal, he argues termination of his parental rights was not in the best
interests of the children. Upon our review, we find termination was in the
children’s best interests and affirm the termination of the father’s parental
rights.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
This family came to the attention of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) in September 2022 when four-year-old A.A. left the
home multiple times without supervision and was found by law enforcement
officers. A.A. and six-year-old T.A. were living in the home with their
mother, three siblings, and the father of one of the siblings. A.A. and T.A.’s
father was incarcerated at the time.

HHS’s involvement continued when it received a report that the
mother assaulted the father of one of the children. And during the HHS
investigation of that incident, additional concerns emerged regarding the
mother’s use of cocaine, ecstasy, and alcohol—all of which the mother
admitted.

In February 2023, the State filed petitions alleging A.A. and T.A.,
along with their other siblings, to be children in need of assistance (CINA)
under Iowa Code section 232.96A(1), (2), (3)(b), (7) and (14) (2024). The
children were adjudicated to be CINA in May 2023.

The children remained in the custody of their mother until
January 2024, when they were removed for their protection. At that time,

1
The mother’s parental rights were also terminated, but she did not this appeal.

2
the children were placed with the father’s paramour subject to a safety plan
because the father remained incarcerated until April. But the children were
removed from the paramour for violations of that safety plan in April and
were returned to the custody of the mother.

Throughout this time, HHS attempted to build a relationship between
the father and the children because he had not been involved with them for
most of their lives. While HHS provided supervised visits between the
children and the father, the children reported they were afraid of him and
struggled to develop a relationship.

In July, the mother’s struggle with substance use resulted in a relapse
which caused the children to again be removed from her custody and placed
in the custody of the father. The children remained with the father until
January 2025 when a child abuse investigation was opened against the father.
This investigation involved another child residing in the home with the
father, his paramour, A.A., and T.A.

Once the investigation was opened, the father fled Iowa for Florida.
The children were left with the father’s paramour, and HHS was not
informed of the father’s absence. The father remained in Florida until he
was arrested and extradited back to Iowa to face charges in April.

The State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(a), (d), (e), (f ), (i), (j), and (m). The
matter proceeded to a hearing, and in August, the juvenile court granted the
State’s petition finding the State had proven grounds for termination of both
parents’ rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f ), and (i). The
father appeals.

3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re
W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021). While not binding on us, we give
weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings, “particularly with respect to
credibility determinations.” Id.

DISCUSSION
Our review follows a three-step analysis in reviewing the termination
of a parent’s rights. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). First, we
consider whether statutory grounds for termination of the parent’s rights
exist under Iowa Code section 232.116(1). Id. Second, we look to whether
termination of the parent’s rights is in the children’s best interests. Id.
(following Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third, we consider whether any of the
exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3) should be applied. Id. But
when the parent does not raise a claim relating to any of the three steps, we
need not address that step and instead limit our review to the specific claims
presented. See id. at 40 (recognizing we need not consider a step the parent
does not challenge). Here, the father does not challenge the statutory
grounds for termination, and so we find the grounds exist under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f ), and (i) as determined by the juvenile court.

Because the father only challenges the juvenile court’s best-interests
determination, we limit our discussion to that issue. To determine whether
termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, we must “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). “We also look to the child’s long-range as well as
immediate interests. . . . [W]e look to the parents’ past performance because

4
it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the
future.” In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020) (cleaned up).

Upon our review of the record, we find termination was in the best
interests of the children. First, the father’s incarceration throughout the lives
of these children, while not alone dispositive, weighs heavily in our analysis.
The father’s choice to “engage in crimes, resulting in his convictions and
incarceration, at the expense of building a relationship with” his children
weighs in favor of finding termination is in the children’s best interests. See
In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96, 101–02 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). Second, when the
father had the opportunity to meaningfully parent the children, he declined
to do so, instead fleeing to Florida to avoid being investigated for child abuse.
And despite efforts from HHS, supervised visits did not result in a
productive relationship between the father and children. The children
reported the father’s paramour did the parenting when they were placed with
the father. Further, we agree with the district court’s finding that the father
also did not financially contribute to the care of these children. Given all of
this we “cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a
ground for termination . . . by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a
parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re A.M., 843
N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (quoting P.L., 778 N.W.2dat 40). Accordingly,
we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

5