Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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 re K.M.

Court of Appeals of Iowa

January 24, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M., Minor Child, A.B., Mother, Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Robert J. Dull, District Associate Judge.

         A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.

          AFFIRMED. Robert B. Brock II of Law Office of Robert B. Brock II, P.C., Le Mars, for appellant mother.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ana Dixit, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

          Meret Thali of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.

          Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.

          VAITHESWARAN, JUDGE.

         A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2012. She contends the record does not support the grounds for termination cited by the district court.

         The district court terminated the mother's parental rights pursuant to several statutory grounds. We may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to support any of the cited grounds. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). On our de novo review, we are persuaded termination was warranted under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2017), which requires the State to prove the following:

(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(2)The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.

The provision states:

"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, ...

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.