Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In the Interest of J.S.

March 27, 2013


Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Doyle, J.

A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.


Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.

The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. She also contends termination was not in the children's best interests. We review her claims de novo. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

In August 2012, the State filed its petition for termination of the mother's parental rights to her children J.S., born 2004, S.S., born 2009, and B.M., born April 2011. Following a hearing, the mother's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1) paragraphs (e), (g), (h), and (l) (2011). We need only find termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).

We choose to focus our attention on section 232.116(1) paragraph (g). Under that paragraph, termination of parental rights is authorized where (1) the child has been adjudicated in need of assistance, (2) the court has terminated parental rights to another child who is a member of the same family, (3) "[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the parent continues to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services which would correct the situation," and (4) an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation. The mother does not dispute the first two elements have been met. Rather, she asserts elements (3) and (4) have not been met. Upon our de novo review, we find the State has met its burden.

Here, the mother is not a stranger to involvement with the Iowa Department of Human Services (Department). She has three older biological children to whom her parental rights were terminated in 2003 as a result of her continued drug abuse. She again came to the attention of the Department in April 2011, following B.M.'s birth, after B.M. tested positive for marijuana at birth. A safety plan was completed, and the mother was offered services.

In December 2011, there was a domestic dispute between the mother and her paramour, requiring police intervention. Both parties violated their existing no-contact orders, and both parties were arrested. The mother then left the children in the care of a person who was also involved with the Department and did not have custody of her own children. B.M. reported she was on the couch during the fight, and she "put the pillow over her head so she would stay safe." The mother's home was found splattered with blood. The Department sought removal of the children from the mother's care, and they were placed in foster care, where they have since remained.

The children were adjudicated children in need of assistance in December 2011, and services continued to be offered to the mother. Following a psychological evaluation in January 2012, the mother was found to have antisocial personality disorder and polysubstance dependence. The psychologist set forth numerous recommendations "in an attempt to boost [the mother's] ability to parent her children," but noted in her report:

[The mother] had little or no acknowledgment of past parenting mistakes or motivation for changing her parenting practices in the future. Rather, she was forthcoming in stating that she would deceive service providers in an attempt to maintain custody of her children. Therefore, her engagement and participation in any services provided to her are likely to be minimal and perhaps disingenuous.

The psychologist recommended the mother participate in random drug testing; secure stable, appropriate, and safe housing; and disallow others to cohabit in her residence. Additionally, the psychologist recommended the mother participate in an anger management program, finding "improved management of negative emotions would be of great benefit in regard to her relationships and parenting abilities" because the mother possessed "minimal coping strategies."

Following her evaluation, the mother was offered mental health treatment, along with substance abuse treatment and drug testing, but her participation was sporadic at best. Despite the psychologist's recommendations, the mother moved back into the home of her paramour in February 2012, even though a no-contact order between the two still existed. In March 2012, the Department learned the mother was pregnant with her paramour's child. Additionally, it was reported the mother had been using methamphetamine during the pregnancy. A drug test was requested, but she ultimately refused. At the end of March 2012, there was another incident of domestic violence between the mother and her paramour; however, the mother continued the relationship.

By the time of the permanency hearing in June 2012, the district court determined reasonable efforts should be waived, and it directed the State to file a petition for termination of her parental rights. The court found the mother had placed her relationship with her paramour above her efforts at regaining custody of the children as well as placing the children at risk of physical abuse as a result of her on-going relationship with the paramour. The children's individual therapist had recommended decreasing visitation with the mother because of the children's behaviors and emotional issues ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.