IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0002 Filed March 11, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF M.P., A.P., AND D.P., Minor Children,
C.P., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan F. Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children,
M.P., A.P., and D.P. AFFIRMED.
Jeannine L. Roberts, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, Jerry Vander Sanden, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Julie Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2
VOGEL, P.J.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children,
M.P., A.P., and D.P. She asserts the State failed to prove grounds to terminate
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2013), and due to the parent-
child bond termination is not in the children’s best interests. We conclude that
because of the mother’s lack of progress with respect to housing, employment,
and mental health services over the course of these proceedings, she is unable
to provide for the children’s basic needs and otherwise be a stable parent.
Furthermore, despite the parent-child bond the mother’s inability to take care of
the children results in termination being in the children’s best interests,
particularly so they may achieve stability. Consequently, we affirm the juvenile
court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights.
M.P., born February 2008, A.P., born November 2010, and D.P., born
June 2012, first came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS) in November 2012. The mother and children were living in a transitional
housing program, and it was reported the apartment was unsanitary. After the
DHS worker made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the mother, she
interviewed the program director, who reported the mother was often absent, the
children were dirty, and they sometimes stated they were hungry. Upon
inspection of the apartment, it was revealed the floor was covered with
garbage—including sanitary pads and rotten food—and D.P.’s crib was full of
items, preventing D.P. from using the crib. Several unsafe objects such as
knives, scissors, medication, dirty diapers, and cigarette butts were also strewn
about the apartment within reach of the children. 3
Once DHS contacted the mother and she was informed she was at risk of
having the children removed due to the unsanitary conditions of the apartment,
she voluntarily placed the children with her father while she cleaned the
residence. The DHS assessment was founded for denial of critical care and
failure to provide adequate shelter naming the mother as the responsible
caregiver. On November 15, 2012, the mother successfully brought the
apartment up to acceptable standards, and the children were returned to her
care. However, the mother was unable to maintain the necessary cleanliness,
and she lost her place in the housing program.
After being removed from the housing program, the mother and children
stayed with one of the mother’s friends. On March 4, 2013, a man attacked the
mother with a knife and sexually assaulted the mother’s friend. The children
were present in the home when this occurred. The mother stated that she could
not care for the children due to the trauma from the assault and she was afraid
she could not keep the man out of her home. Consequently, the children were
removed on March 6, 2013. D.P. was placed with his father—though he was
later removed and placed in a foster home—and A.P. and M.P. were placed in
foster care.
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA) following a
hearing on March 13, 2013, in which the mother agreed the children should
remain out of her care. Drug testing was performed, and A.P. tested positive for
methamphetamine. The mother stated she did not know how A.P. was exposed
to the drug. The mother also participated in only nine drug screenings—all
negative—out of approximately forty-four that were requested. 4
The following services were offered to the mother during the pendency of
this proceeding: supervised visitation; drug testing; substance abuse and mental
health screening and treatment; parenting instruction; family team meetings; and
family safety, risk, and permanency services. However, the mother did not take
advantage of these services. She continued to be unemployed for the majority of
the time, with a brief stint at two fast food restaurants, one of which she obtained
shortly before the termination hearing. She also failed to find housing, remaining
with friends or relatives, and was therefore unable to demonstrate she could
maintain a safe environment for the children. She did not attend any counseling
or substance abuse treatment, though she did complete an evaluation.
While initially it was difficult for DHS to contact the mother to arrange
supervised visits, the mother was relatively consistent with attending visits during
the few months leading up to the termination hearing. However, despite the
notable bond between the mother and the children, the DHS worker maintained
concerns that the mother could not properly care for all three children long-term.
Some progress was made in that visits progressed to semi-supervised, but the
children were never placed in the mother’s care.
Due to the mother’s inability to care for the children, in spite of the many
services offered, the State petitioned to terminate her parental rights. A
contested hearing was held on June 27 and July 8, 2014, and in an order dated
December 16, 2014, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h).1 The mother appeals.
1 The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of D.P.’s father. Though he appealed, the appeal was untimely and therefore dismissed. 5
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63,
64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The grounds for termination must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. Id. Our primary concern is the child’s best interest. Id.
To terminate the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f), the State must prove: (1) the child is four years of age or older;
(2) the child has been adjudicated CINA; (3) the child has been removed from the
physical custody of the mother for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or
for the last twelve consecutive months; and (4) there is clear and convincing
evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of
the mother as provided in section 232.102. To terminate under paragraph
(h), the State must show: (1) the child is three years of age or younger; (2) the
child has been adjudicated CINA; (3) the child has been removed from the
physical custody of the mother for at least six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months; and (4) there is clear and convincing
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0002 Filed March 11, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF M.P., A.P., AND D.P., Minor Children,
C.P., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan F. Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children,
M.P., A.P., and D.P. AFFIRMED.
Jeannine L. Roberts, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, Jerry Vander Sanden, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Julie Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2
VOGEL, P.J.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children,
M.P., A.P., and D.P. She asserts the State failed to prove grounds to terminate
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2013), and due to the parent-
child bond termination is not in the children’s best interests. We conclude that
because of the mother’s lack of progress with respect to housing, employment,
and mental health services over the course of these proceedings, she is unable
to provide for the children’s basic needs and otherwise be a stable parent.
Furthermore, despite the parent-child bond the mother’s inability to take care of
the children results in termination being in the children’s best interests,
particularly so they may achieve stability. Consequently, we affirm the juvenile
court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights.
M.P., born February 2008, A.P., born November 2010, and D.P., born
June 2012, first came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS) in November 2012. The mother and children were living in a transitional
housing program, and it was reported the apartment was unsanitary. After the
DHS worker made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the mother, she
interviewed the program director, who reported the mother was often absent, the
children were dirty, and they sometimes stated they were hungry. Upon
inspection of the apartment, it was revealed the floor was covered with
garbage—including sanitary pads and rotten food—and D.P.’s crib was full of
items, preventing D.P. from using the crib. Several unsafe objects such as
knives, scissors, medication, dirty diapers, and cigarette butts were also strewn
about the apartment within reach of the children. 3
Once DHS contacted the mother and she was informed she was at risk of
having the children removed due to the unsanitary conditions of the apartment,
she voluntarily placed the children with her father while she cleaned the
residence. The DHS assessment was founded for denial of critical care and
failure to provide adequate shelter naming the mother as the responsible
caregiver. On November 15, 2012, the mother successfully brought the
apartment up to acceptable standards, and the children were returned to her
care. However, the mother was unable to maintain the necessary cleanliness,
and she lost her place in the housing program.
After being removed from the housing program, the mother and children
stayed with one of the mother’s friends. On March 4, 2013, a man attacked the
mother with a knife and sexually assaulted the mother’s friend. The children
were present in the home when this occurred. The mother stated that she could
not care for the children due to the trauma from the assault and she was afraid
she could not keep the man out of her home. Consequently, the children were
removed on March 6, 2013. D.P. was placed with his father—though he was
later removed and placed in a foster home—and A.P. and M.P. were placed in
foster care.
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA) following a
hearing on March 13, 2013, in which the mother agreed the children should
remain out of her care. Drug testing was performed, and A.P. tested positive for
methamphetamine. The mother stated she did not know how A.P. was exposed
to the drug. The mother also participated in only nine drug screenings—all
negative—out of approximately forty-four that were requested. 4
The following services were offered to the mother during the pendency of
this proceeding: supervised visitation; drug testing; substance abuse and mental
health screening and treatment; parenting instruction; family team meetings; and
family safety, risk, and permanency services. However, the mother did not take
advantage of these services. She continued to be unemployed for the majority of
the time, with a brief stint at two fast food restaurants, one of which she obtained
shortly before the termination hearing. She also failed to find housing, remaining
with friends or relatives, and was therefore unable to demonstrate she could
maintain a safe environment for the children. She did not attend any counseling
or substance abuse treatment, though she did complete an evaluation.
While initially it was difficult for DHS to contact the mother to arrange
supervised visits, the mother was relatively consistent with attending visits during
the few months leading up to the termination hearing. However, despite the
notable bond between the mother and the children, the DHS worker maintained
concerns that the mother could not properly care for all three children long-term.
Some progress was made in that visits progressed to semi-supervised, but the
children were never placed in the mother’s care.
Due to the mother’s inability to care for the children, in spite of the many
services offered, the State petitioned to terminate her parental rights. A
contested hearing was held on June 27 and July 8, 2014, and in an order dated
December 16, 2014, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h).1 The mother appeals.
1 The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of D.P.’s father. Though he appealed, the appeal was untimely and therefore dismissed. 5
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63,
64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The grounds for termination must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. Id. Our primary concern is the child’s best interest. Id.
To terminate the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f), the State must prove: (1) the child is four years of age or older;
(2) the child has been adjudicated CINA; (3) the child has been removed from the
physical custody of the mother for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or
for the last twelve consecutive months; and (4) there is clear and convincing
evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of
the mother as provided in section 232.102. To terminate under paragraph
(h), the State must show: (1) the child is three years of age or younger; (2) the
child has been adjudicated CINA; (3) the child has been removed from the
physical custody of the mother for at least six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months; and (4) there is clear and convincing
evidence that the child cannot be returned to the mother’s custody.
Given the mother’s inability to show she can properly parent the children,
it is evident they cannot be returned to her care within the meaning of paragraphs
(f) and (h). As the juvenile court noted:
Since the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights, the level of progress by [the mother] has been minimal. At the time of the termination hearing, [the mother] continued to be homeless and continued to move between friends and family. Because of her transiency, there has been no opportunity to evaluate her ability to maintain a safe, sanitary home for her children. [The mother] has not been able to maintain employment. Her cooperation with drug/alcohol testing has not been consistent. She continues not to participate in either mental health or substance abuse counseling although her history and the evaluations provided to this court indicate that both would benefit her and hopefully assist in 6
improving her judgment and decision making. [The mother] occasionally missed some visits with the children but, overall, her attendance at visitation is a positive for her . . . . [The mother] and the children have an obvious, loving bond. However, [the mother] has difficulty supervising all three children and managing their behavior.
The record supports the court’s assessment, particularly the testimony of
the DHS workers, who stated they believed the children could not be returned to
the mother’s care due to her inability to parent the children adequately. In
determining the future actions of the parent, her past conduct is instructive. In re
J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). It is clear here the mother cannot
maintain stable housing or employment and has not engaged in substance abuse
or mental health treatment; nor has she been able to demonstrate she is able to
provide for the children safely. Therefore, we agree with the juvenile court the
State proved grounds to terminate her parental rights under paragraphs (f) as to
M.P. and (h) as to A.P and D.P.
Furthermore, termination is in the children’s best interest. It is undisputed
the mother and children share a bond. However, the record demonstrates she
has been unable to acquire the skills necessary to parent the children in a safe
and stable environment. “We have repeatedly followed the principle that the
statutory time line must be followed and children should not be forced to wait for
their parent to grow up.” In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998);
see also Iowa Code § 232.116(2). As the DHS worker noted:
[T]he children are very bonded to their mother, and I think that is important, but the problem is that since the case has been open, she has struggled with these obstacles from the very beginning and continues to. I’m afraid that emotionally, if we allow extra time and she doesn’t achieve those goals, how detrimental will that be to their emotional health. I know she has been trying, and it’s difficult 7
because the kids are bonded with her, but they also need a permanent placement.
Given this testimony, as well as the mother’s inability to acquire stable housing
from the time the children were removed in March 2013 until the termination
hearing—or otherwise demonstrate she is able to parent the children full-time—
termination of her parental rights is in the children’s best interest, particularly so
they can achieve stability. Consequently, we affirm the order of the juvenile court
terminating the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.