In the Interest of J.W. and J.W., Minor Children
This text of In the Interest of J.W. and J.W., Minor Children (In the Interest of J.W. and J.W., Minor Children) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-2019 Filed March 5, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. and J.W., Minor Children,
J.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,
Judge.
A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to two children.
AFFIRMED.
Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant Public Defender, Cedar Rapids, for
appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Robin L. O’Brien Licht, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for
minor children.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
The mother appeals termination of her parental rights to J.W. (born 2018)
and J.W. (born 2019). The fathers’ rights are not at issue in this appeal. On our
review of the preserved errors, we affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings. This family originally came to the
attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2022,
when the department issued a founded child-abuse assessment for burns and
other physical injuries to the younger child. In June 2023, HHS conducted another
assessment based on reports of physical injuries inflicted by the mother and her
marijuana use, but the family’s lack of cooperation and a placement with relatives
out of state led to the assessment being closed without a formal juvenile-court
adjudication.
In October 2023, the department again became involved when the younger
child was found unresponsive and taken to the hospital for medical treatment of
multiple injuries believed to be intentionally inflicted by the mother. The injuries
included fluid in the child’s lungs consistent with drowning, “lacerations all over his
body,” missing teeth, vertebral fractures, scars, burns, numerous hematomas of
the skull and other body parts, and damage to his retinas. Medical reports
concluded the injuries were indicative of “child abuse by torture” perpetrated over
a period of time. The older child also had injuries, though less life-threatening—
including more than twenty scars in various stage of healing, also found to be
consistent with child abuse. Both children indicated the mother physically injured
them and that they were afraid. Both children tested positive for marijuana, and
the younger child tested positive for methamphetamine. 3
The mother was charged with nine counts of felony child endangerment
and, as of the termination trial, remained incarcerated on felony-theft and assault
charges while awaiting trial for child endangerment. The children have been
removed from her custody since the incident in October 2023.
The juvenile court found both children were in need of assistance. The older
child was placed with a relative and foster placements before eventually returning
to her father’s custody while remaining under HHS’s supervision. And the younger
child was placed with relative and foster placements while in HHS’s legal custody.
The mother reported to HHS that she hears voices in her head, that her
mental health was unstable, and that she may have bipolar disorder. And the
children’s therapist recommended the children not have any contact with the
mother due to their fear of her, the history of abuse, and the likelihood the mother
would attempt to influence their testimony in the pending criminal case. The HHS
worker and the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) also reported the children
described similar fears in conversations with them. Both criminal- and
juvenile-no-contact orders prohibit any contact between the mother and children;
she therefore has not seen or spoken to the children essentially since removal.
The mother did not testify at the termination trial. And she generally
declined to cooperate with HHS’s assessment, citing the pending criminal charges.
She has yet to acknowledge that she physically abused the children.
At trial, the mother’s boyfriend told the juvenile court he thought she was a
good mother and that the children were not afraid of her. And a friend of the mother
testified similarly. The juvenile court “did not find either of these witnesses 4
credible” and noted they downplayed the extensive injuries inflicted on the younger
child by the mother.
The children are doing reasonably well in their placements: the younger
child is attending ongoing therapy and therapy is in the works for the older child,
both have their needs met, and both continue to have sibling contact.
The county attorney, HHS, and the GAL all recommended termination of
parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(f), (i), and (j) (2024). The mother appeals, and we review
de novo. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021). She challenges
whether HHS made reasonable efforts to reunite the family, whether termination is
in the children’s best interests, and whether an exception applies.
Reasonable Efforts. The mother’s petition claims she preserved error
relating to reasonable efforts because there was a trial and she filed a notice of
appeal. But that is incorrect as a matter of law. To preserve error regarding
reasonable efforts, parents must “object when they claim the nature or extent of
services is inadequate,” and they must generally do so before the termination trial.
In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 839–40 (Iowa 2017); see also In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 493–94 (Iowa 2000). And relying on a notice of appeal for error
preservation is so inaccurate it now violates the rules of appellate procedure. See
Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(1) (“Filing a notice of appeal does not preserve an
issue for appeal, and citing to the notice does not satisfy this requirement.”). We
conclude the mother did not preserve her reasonable-efforts claim. But, in any
event, we have independently reviewed the record, and we credit the HHS
worker’s testimony that the department provided appropriate services in this case 5
given the mother’s incarceration and the no-contact orders that prohibited her
interacting with the children as a consequence of the mother physically abusing
them. And, as far as we can tell, the mother received every service she asked for
that could be provided within those limitations. We would find no error even if the
claim was preserved.
Best Interests. The mother also asserts termination is not in the children’s
best interests. In making this determination, we give primary weight “to the
child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and
growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and
needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). In our review of the record, we
agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the children’s best interests: they
suffered years of abuse at the mother’s hands, the mother has yet to take any
responsibility for inflicting that abuse, the children are doing well in their
placements, and they deserve permanency.
Relative-Custody Exception.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of J.W. and J.W., Minor Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-jw-and-jw-minor-children-iowactapp-2025.