Date: 05-08-2024

Case Style:

In the Interest of F.W., a minor child, and R.G. Father

Case Number:

Judge: Monty Frank

Court: District Court, Ringgold County, Iowa

Plaintiff's Attorney: Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and MacKenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Mount Ayr Lawyer Directory

Description:

Mount Ayr, Iowas family law lawyer represented the Defendant sued by the State seeking termination of his parential rights.

The child lived her first few weeks with the mother, then started living with the paternal grandmother around one month later. The father occasionally saw the child during this time but went to prison in Missouri shortly after the child's birth. The mother (whose rights were terminated but has not appealed) was sentenced to prison shortly thereafter and indicated she wanted nothing to do with the child. The paternal grandmother was granted guardianship in July 2021 over the father's objection.

When the father was released from one of his periods of incarceration, he visited with the child "here and there" at the grandmother's home with mixed results and only one overnight visit on the child's second birthday. During that visit, the father attempted to barricade himself and the child in the basement-resulting in officers arresting him and new criminal charges. The father returned to prison shortly after this incident and remained incarcerated through the termination trial. In total, the father has been jailed or imprisoned for the majority of his adult life and most of the child's life.

In the grandmother's words, the father "can be a good man. He can be. But he can't stay out of prison." And "you can't be a dad when you're locked up all the time." She also described the father as an addict, explaining how he could not quit using controlled substances. The father's own testimony largely echoed this observation, noting he had been using drugs his "whole life." Records from the underlying child in need of assistance (CINA) case revealed the father's drug use

3

started at age ten and involved marijuana, methamphetamine, and prescription drugs.

In January 2023, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) removed the child from the grandmother's home due to concerns unrelated to this appeal, and the juvenile court adjudicated F.W. a CINA in March. As part of the permanency plan, the court ordered the parents to participate in services- including substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations and treatment.

By the termination trial, the father still had not completed a substance-abuse or mental-health evaluation or engaged with services, despite widespread agreement as to his nearly lifelong and significant drug problem. For at least some portion of his time in prison, the father was in segregated or restricted custody, and he indicated he could not obtain adequate services through the Missouri correctional system. (The father claimed he "voluntarily" placed himself in segregation, but this was not independently corroborated by other record evidence.) While in segregation, the father could not access a phone for contact with the child. An HHS worker testified it was impossible for Iowa HHS to provide many services to offenders incarcerated in Missouri. The juvenile court found the father's failure to address the substance-abuse and mental-health concerns meant that returning the child to his care would result in multiple adjudicatory harms.

There is conflicting evidence on when the father's prison sentence will end. His total sentence appears to be for seven years with a completion date in 2026. A Missouri Department of Corrections document denying release in 2023 indicated the father may be released in May 2024 subject to continued good behavior and an acceptable release plan, but that same document noted:

4

**There does not appear to be a reasonable probability at this time that you would live and remain at liberty without again violating the law based upon: History of prior criminal involvement, Poor field supervision history, Need for institutional substance abuse treatment, [and] Poor institutional adjustment.

In any event, the juvenile court found the father's failure to engage with substance-abuse or mental-health services meant-at minimum-it would be "numerous months following his release" before the father would be a safe placement for the child. And the father admitted in his own testimony it would have to be a "slow reintegration process" before he could care for the child. The record does not contain the exact restrictions the father would face on parole and is somewhat inconsistent as to the exact charges that led to his current incarceration-though there is agreement he has been incarcerated at some point for offenses related to burglary, domestic abuse, forgery, controlled substances, harassment, and various misdemeanors.

In the eighteen months before termination, the father had no contact with the child. An HHS worker testified-and no party disputed-that the department wanted to get the child into therapy and receive "therapeutic feedback" about visits before they took place. The juvenile court found the father "ha[d] not developed a bond with the child" and "has no parent-child relationship with" the child, who referred to the grandmother's paramour and her foster dad as the father figures in her life.

The child's grandmother testified the father had not sent correspondence, cards, letters, or anything else to the child while he was incarcerated, though he did send letters via HHS after the CINA case was underway. She also explained how the father never provided any financial assistance for the child while he was in or out of prison. The grandmother's paramour confirmed they had been the child's sole source of financial support. But the father disputed this version of events, asserting he provided cash and "supplied all of [the child's] diapers and wipes and anything else that she needed." The father's testimony on this point was undercut to some extent by a previous interview with HHS, in which he disclosed paying child support for another child but not F.W. At trial, the father also contested the grandmother and her paramour's description of the barricaded-in-the-basement event that led to his arrest and incarceration, claiming the police "just decided to place [him] under arrest" for no reason and he pled guilty even though he "could [have] eventually beat" the charge.

As of trial, the child was doing well in foster care, and HHS was working to rebuild her relationship with her grandmother. Both the foster parents and grandmother indicated they were willing to adopt. The county attorney, HHS, and the child's guardian ad litem all recommended termination.

In re F.W., 24-0111 (Iowa App. May 08, 2024)

Outcome: "The juvenile court terminated the father's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) and (e) (2023). He appeals, and we review de novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021)."

Affirmed.

In re F.W., 24-0111 (Iowa App. May 08, 2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: