In re P.B.
| Decision Date | 26 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-1467 |
| Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF P.B., Minor Child, B.M., Mother, Petitioner-Appellee, J.B., Father, Respondent-Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Erica Crisp District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2021).
Ryan A. Genest of Simpson, Jensen, Abels, Fischer &Bouslog P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud &Weese, P.C. West Des Moines, for appellee. Lois Vroom, Knoxville attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Heard by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
A father, J.B., appeals the termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2021). He contends that he did not abandon his daughter, P.B. And he asserts that termination was not in her best interests. On our review, we find P.B.'s mother, B.M., offered clear and convincing evidence of abandonment. We also conclude that termination serves P.B.'s best interests. Thus, we affirm the termination order.
The parents married in June 2010. They welcomed their daughter, P.B., in February 2015. Before his daughter's birth, J.B. completed an eleven-month tour in Afghanistan with the United States Army National Guard.[1] When he returned from service, J.B. suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a traumatic brain injury, sleep apnea, and nerve damage to his back and hands.[2] His mentalhealth issues contributed to strife in their marriage; J.B. admitted that they
By October 2015, J.B. left a note for B.M. saying that he planned to move out: "I specifically said I think I need to either get an apartment on my own or . . . move in with my parents, and we need to work on us, that I'm having all these issues." He left the next day for Des Moines, but left most his belongings behind.[3]B.M. immediately called J.B.'s parents. They asked J.B. what the note meant. He responded, "I don't know what it means."
B.M. filed for divorce that November. After J.B. was served with the divorce petition, he "had a breakdown" and attempted suicide. He realized he "needed to get help" and went to the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital in Des Moines. The father entered a 90-day PTSD program. He was not allowed to leave until the program was completed. And he stayed for 100 days. He testified that he was discharged with a disability rating of 100 percent for his PTSD and 70 percent for his brain injury. He had minimal contact with P.B. during this time. But, at his request, B.M. did bring the child for two visits while he was in the hospital.
J.B. failed to respond to the divorce petition. So the district court entered a default decree in February 2016. The court ordered J.B. to pay $114 in monthly child support, based on the federal minimum wage. The district court awarded sole legal custody and physical care of P.B. to B.M., who lived in Peoria, Iowa. The decree allowed J.B. visitation, "at the times, days, and in a manner as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time, and not to interfere with the activities, well-being and best interest of the child." Plus, J.B.'s visits had to be supervised by B.M. or another adult that she designated. J.B. testified he did not blame the Court "by any means" for acquiescing in B.M.'s request to be in charge of visitation.
Following the divorce, J.B. moved out of Iowa. He testified that the parents of a fallen comrade loaned him money to relocate to Indiana so he could "get work and obviously finish working on myself." After the move, he worked full-time as a corrections officer. Meanwhile, B.M. stayed with P.B. in Peoria. They continued to have some contact with P.B.'s paternal grandparents, who also lived in Iowa. However, J.B. did not have any personal contact with the child for nearly five years.
According to trial testimony, J.B. had four visits with his daughter after he moved. Their first interaction was at the Eddyville Raceway. The second visit was at the Blank Park Zoo in 2017. He also saw P.B. at Christmas time that year. And B.M. recalled that J.B. "showed up randomly" on her porch when he was back in Iowa once to visit his parents. On top of those in-person visits, J.B. testified that he and his daughter spoke on the phone two or three times per week while he was living in Indiana.
But things changed when both parents remarried in 2018.[4] B.M.-along with P.B.-moved to a home in Pella with her new husband, J.M.[5] That year, according to J.B.'s testimony, "all contact stopped, and I would just get voicemails." He remembered calling B.M. from his office phone; she picked up, then hung up, realizing it was him. And J.B.'s mother, D.B., also testified that she saw B.M. send a call from J.B. to voicemail.
B.M. testified that she decided in 2018 that contact between J.B. and their daughter was no longer in the child's best interests. Yet B.M. claimed that she never told J.B. that she was ending communication.[6] But J.B. testified that he got the message through his parents. They showed him text messages and emails from B.M. informing them that they too would be cut off from their grandchild if they allowed him to contact P.B.
After learning of B.M.'s decision, J.B. said he considered hiring a lawyer, but couldn't afford one: "I did call several, tried to reach out to several Veteran Services to see if a lawyer could be appointed or help someone with-you know, on disability and, unfortunately, that just wasn't the case." J.B.'s mother corroborated his inability to afford legal representation: "He didn't have the money to do that."[7] Despite his limited means, J.B. did maintain regular employment. Moving from Indiana, he took a job in North Carolina with a specialty lighting company. Eighteen months later, he relocated to Virginia, where he trained young people how to ride motocross.
P.B.'s relationship with her paternal grandparents also changed after B.M. remarried. The couple, who lived in Sully, had been seeing P.B. two to three times per week. Then after 2018, B.M. restricted their visits. For example, P.B. could not stay overnight at her grandparents' house because B.M. worried they would allow J.B. to see her. Still, they would take P.B. camping one weekend per month. But B.M. ended those interactions too in October 2019.
That same year, J.B. tried to pay child support but did not follow through.[8]In January, February, March, and April, he sent checks in the amount of $150.00. But when B.M. waited to deposit all four checks at once that April, they were returned for insufficient funds. B.M. testified that J.B. left an angry voicemail after the checks bounced: "He specifically said that he didn't want to ever have anything to do with [P.B.] again." J.B. disputed saying that. B.M. also testified that she had "a stack" of checks "at home now that I haven't bothered to take to the bank."
B.M. petitioned to terminate J.B.'s parental rights to P.B. in November 2021. The district court set a hearing and appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent P.B.'s interests. The GAL filed a report reflecting her conversations with B.M. and P.B. The GAL said she "attempted to contact [J.B.] through his attorney to conduct an interview but that never occurred." J.B. acknowledged he and his attorney were never able to quite manage to set up a time to talk with her, and J.B. further acknowledged it was not the GAL's fault.
After B.M. filed her petition, J.B. met his unpaid child support obligation with help from his mother. The grandmother testified that she was subtracting the payment from J.B.'s inheritance: "unfortunately, [J.B.] doesn't balance a checkbook . . . so that's why I took over and said, I will send the checks."
Two days before hearing, J.B. moved for a continuance. He claimed to be "in the process of relocating" to Knoxville, Iowa.[9] He asked for six months to "possibly reestablish a relationship with his child." But the court denied the motion.
Both parents and the paternal grandmother testified at trial. The GAL filed a report recommending termination.[10] The district court terminated J.B.'s parental rights on abandonment grounds. The court also found that termination was in the child's best interests. J.B. now appeals.
We review private terminations under chapter 600A de novo. In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96, 99 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). We give weight to the district court's factual findings-particularly on credibility issues-but are not bound by them. Id. Our primary concern is P.B.'s best interests. See id.
Terminations under chapter 600A follow a two-step process. In re B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). First, the petitioner must prove a ground for termination. Id. Second, the petitioner must show termination is in the child's best interests. Id. The petitioner must offer clear and convincing evidence for both steps. Id. The clear-and-convincing standard "is the highest evidentiary burden" for civil cases. In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). For a party to meet this burden, "there must be no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of a particular conclusion drawn from the evidence." Id. (citing In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478, 481 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995)).
The district court found that B.M. offered clear and convincing evidence that J.B. abandoned P.B. See Iowa Code § 600A.8(3)(b). Parents abandon their children under this...
To continue reading
Request your trial