IN RE INTEREST OF M.A., 699 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa App. 2005)

No. 5-340 / 05-0358Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 11, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Terry Wilson, District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.AFFIRMED.

Aaron L. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Siebrecht Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Terry E. Rachels, County Attorney, and Marc R. Wallace, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Terri Beukelman, Pella, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

VAITHESWARAN, J.

Kevin appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, Mackenzie, born in 2002. The fighting issue is whether the State proved a lack of “significant and meaningful contact” between Kevin and Mackenzie. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e)(3) (2003).

“Significant and meaningful contact”

includes but is not limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain communication with the child, and requires that the parents establish and maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.

Id. (emphasis added). We review the record de novo to determine if this standard was satisfied. Id. § 232.133(1).

Mackenzie was removed from her parents’ home in March 2003 because she was not thriving. She was placed with her mother’s step-sister, where she remained for the following two years. This step-sister had an “open-door policy” on visitation. Kevin visited Mackenzie regularly in the beginning but, according to a Department of Human Services social worker, “did not take total responsibility for meeting her needs during the supervised time.” By August 2003, Kevin’s visitation began “to decrease dramatically.” When he did attend, he continued to treat visitation as a “play date,” rather than an opportunity to parent Mackenzie. The social worker noted,

[N]either parent has demonstrated a complete commitment to Mackenzie. They have only made efforts when it is convenient for them. They were only expected to spend 2-3 hours a day, 4 days a week with Mackenzie providing for her full care. And this would have allowed the therapist and this worker to determine their ability to meet Mackenzie’s needs, ensure her safety and recommend starting unsupervised visits. This has not happened, even after repeated reminders by the in-home worker.

Notably, Kevin was given an additional six months to regain custody of Mackenzie. His contacts with his daughter remained inconsistent in quantity and quality. Eventually, the district court ruled that the Department could end its reunification efforts, including visitation. The last time Kevin visited his daughter was in September 2004.

We are cognizant of Kevin’s testimony disputing the Department’s version of events. Kevin specifically noted that there were times he could not reach the Department’s social worker to arrange visitation. The district court discounted his testimony, stating:

The father’s testimony both at this hearing and the permanency hearing is not very convincing. I don’t know — almost every question he’s asked, he wasn’t sure of an answer. He wasn’t sure what somebody said. He wasn’t sure who said it. He wasn’t sure what visits he had.
And I tend to think he was not purposely being evasive. I would be more tending to believe that this may be a disability and perhaps it relates to the disability he’s drawing social security for. But his ability to relate facts, remember dates, this is a case where I think the credibility of the witness is very important. I hope the record properly shows that I have given great weight to that. I just find it hard to believe that a parent who wants a child back can’t make any contact with anyone to set up visitations. Any determined parent would go out of their way. But just to say I made a phone call every day, nobody answered, that’s not an excuse. When you’re determined, you can get these things done.

(Emphasis added). We give weight to this detailed adverse credibility finding. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).

We agree with the district court that the State proved an absence of significant and meaningful contact between Kevin and Mackenzie. We also agree that termination of his parental rights to Mackenzie is in the child’s best interest. The remaining issues raised by Kevin are either subsumed within our analysis above, unnecessary to decide, or without merit.

AFFIRMED.

Huitink, J., concurs; Sackett, C.J., dissents.

SACKETT, C.J. (dissenting)

I dissent.

I would reverse. There is not clear and convincing evidence supporting termination.