Opinion
No. 3-793 / 03-0973
Filed October 29, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court forDubuqueCounty, Jane Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the district court's denial of her petition to terminate the parental rights of her former husband to their child. REVERSED.
Thomas Bitter of Bitter Law Offices, Dubuque, for appellant-mother.
W.H., East Dubuque, appellee-father pro se.
Mary Schumacher, Dubuque, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
Julie M. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of her former husband to their only child. The district court denied the petition. We reverse.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Julie and William H. were married in 1994. Their only child, Kelsey H., was born in 1995. The parties separated in 1997 and divorced in June 1998. The decree awarded primary care of Kelsey to Julie. William was awarded visitation rights and ordered to pay child support.
In March of 2003 Julie petitioned the court to terminate William's parental rights. She alleged William had almost no personal contact with Kelsey for the past five years and had paid almost no child support. Following a contested hearing, the district court denied Julie's petition. This appeal followed. Julie contends the record reveals clear and convincing evidence to establish abandonment and argues termination is in Kelsey's best interests. We review these issues de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4.
II. Abandonment
Under the provisions of Iowa Code chapter 600A, a parent may petition the juvenile court for termination of another parent's rights. Iowa Code § 600A.5(1)(a) (2003). Termination of parental rights is appropriate where a parent has abandoned a child. Iowa Code § 600A.8(3). To establish abandonment, it must be shown that the parent has rejected the duties imposed by the parent-child relationship. Iowa Code § 600A.2(18). Evidence of abandonment may include the parent's failure to provide for the support of the child, while being able to do so, or failure to communicate with the child. Id.
On appeal, Julie contends the abandonment factors just mentioned are present in this case. The child's guardian ad litem agrees and has joined in the mother's request for termination of the parental rights of the child's biological father. William did not file a responsive brief in this appeal.
Upon de novo review of the record, we conclude William has abandoned Kelsey within the meaning of chapter 600A. The record reveals William has had minimal contact with his daughter and has engaged in no affirmative parenting. William had no contact with this child in the year preceding the termination trial. His testimony indicates he has seen Kelsey only three times during the last three years and has not had his daughter in his overnight care during the past five years. During a visit in the summer of 2001, Kelsey did not recognize her father and had no idea who he was. William attributes his lack of contact with Kelsey to Julie's interference with his visitation rights; however, since the parties' divorce in 1998, he has never gone back to court to enforce any provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. By his own admission, William has failed to pay any child support for his daughter in the past four years. During this same period of time he has been purchasing a home on contract and running his own business, Custom Auto Repair and Service. The record includes information that William earns approximately $32,000 annually from his business. His gross income in the year 2000 was $54,019. William is currently paying child support for another child by a different mother. The record demonstrates William is both unprepared and unwilling to be a parent.
III. Best Interests
Once we determine a ground for termination under section 600A.8 has been established by clear and convincing evidence, we must address whether termination of William's parental rights is in Kelsey's best interests. In re T.Q., 519 N.W.2d 105, 106 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994) (stating child's best interests are "paramount consideration" in chapter 600A proceedings). The best interests of a child require that each biological parent affirmatively assume the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. Iowa Code § 600A.1. The record reveals William has not fulfilled his financial obligations to his daughter. In addition, he has shown little interest in his child and has not demonstrated a genuine effort to maintain communication with her despite the fact they live in the same geographical area. William simply has not established or maintained a place of importance in his daughter's life. We conclude it is in Kelsey's best interests to terminate William's parental rights. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's decision to the contrary.