In the Interest of R.W., Minor Child, D.W., Mother
This text of In the Interest of R.W., Minor Child, D.W., Mother (In the Interest of R.W., Minor Child, D.W., Mother) 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. 14-1876 Filed January 28, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF R.W., Minor Child,
D.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Emily S. Dean,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Laura Krehbiel, Donnellson, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, Darin R. Stater, County Attorney, and Erin Stensvaag, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Sarah S. James of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ. 2
POTTERFIELD, J.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights,
contending the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunify parent and child,
and termination is not in the child’s best interests.
We conduct a de novo review of termination-of-parental-rights
proceedings. In re P.L., 773 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2013) provides that termination may be
ordered when there is clear and convincing evidence that a child four years of
age or older who has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) and
removed from the parents’ care for at least the last twelve consecutive months
cannot be returned to the parents’ custody at the time of the termination hearing.
R.W. is ten years old, was adjudicated a CINA on November 15, 2012, and has
been out of his mother’s custody since October 2012—now more than two years.
By the mother’s own testimony at the termination trial, the child cannot be
returned to her at present because her residence is not suitable for the child.
Thus, there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination pursuant to
section 232.116(1)(f).
We reject the mother’s claim that the State did not make reasonable
efforts to reunify mother and child. At the time the termination trial began on July
9, 2014, services had been offered for more than twenty months. On the second
day of the termination trial, on August 27, 2014, the mother asserted the State
had failed to make access to transportation available so she could attend
counseling sessions—a service the mother maintains she does not need. 3
Since October 2012, services have been provided to the family, including
parenting skill education, supervised visits, medication management, and
community resource referral. The mother finally attended a recommended
psychological assessment in September 2013, which resulted in a provisional
diagnosis of a delusional disorder. The psychologist recommended the mother
be evaluated for possible medication needs and participate in ongoing therapy.
In October 2013, a permanency hearing was held and the mother was granted a
six-month extension to allow her time to follow through with the
recommendations contained in the psychological assessment. Services and
visitation continued.
The mother began attending therapy sessions with licensed social worker
Eva Ford in December 2013. Ford, testified therapy sessions with the mother
came to an end in March 2014. The mother stated—on the second day of the
termination trial—she did not continue with therapy because she was unable to
afford transportation and DHS had not helped her access transportation.1 The
therapist testified therapy ceased because the mother “did not feel like she was
really benefiting.” Ms. Ford stated, “I think also she thought that this matter was
going to come to court more quickly than it did, and . . . she’d done what she was
asked to do, she’d come in . . . . She didn’t really from the beginning think she
needed it.” Ms. Ford opined further therapy would only be of benefit if the mother
“wanted a goal on her own” and “it probably wouldn’t be an easy fix.” The
juvenile court found the State made reasonable efforts; we agree. See In re
1 Paradoxically, while the mother contended she could not afford transportation, she testified she was in the process of looking to purchase a home that would be suitable for R.W. 4
C.W., 522 N.W.2d 113, 117 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (“While efforts specifically
tailored to [the mother’s] needs (particularly one finding housing for [her] and [the
child]) might have reunified this family, [the mother] did not challenge the offered
services or request specific services tailored to her specific problems. A parent’s
challenge to services should be made when they are offered.”); see also In re
C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002) (rejecting reasonable-efforts challenge
where parent argues State did not provide treatment “for a deficit the parent
claims he does not have”).
Moreover, while we recognize the mother loves her son, termination of the
mother’s parental rights will best provide the child with the stability and
consistency he needs. Sara Crozier, the service provider supervisor, testified
R.W. is a “challenging child” who is “cognitively limited” and “has pretty significant
ADHD.” He can be physically and verbally assaultive. He needs structure,
consistency, supervision, and redirection, which the mother is not able to provide
despite years of services.2 The mother’s visits with the child often end early and
have sometimes ended with the mother or a service provider calling the police
because the mother was unable to redirect R.W. before his behavior escalated
and spiraled out of control. Amy Laughlin (the department social worker
assigned to R.W.’s case) testified the mother may be capable of recognizing
when R.W.’s conduct is inappropriate; however, she is not willing to address the
2 The mother has her own mental capacity and mental health challenges. Either as a result of her mental capacity or her psychological makeup, she does not believe her parenting skills are inadequate. This family was involved with and received services through the department of human services from 2008 through 2009. In 2012, the mother contacted the department for assistance because she was unable to manage R.W.’s behaviors. She remains unable to parent R.W. safely. 5
behavior “until it crosses the line from annoying to completely inappropriate or
completely out of hand.” R.W.’s behaviors do not similarly escalate when he is at
his foster home—no physical intervention has ever been required there. It is
essential that a parent be able to recognize and acknowledge a child’s needs.
The mother contends termination of her rights is not warranted because
R.W. is not in a pre-adoptive home. However, we find that termination and the
possibility of long-term consistent, suitable care is in the child’s best interests.
See In re T.C., 522 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (noting no termination
statutory provision requires a finding that the child is adoptable—“[o]ur governing
consideration is the best interest of the child”). The foster father testified that
R.W. has been in the foster home since October 2012 and, while not a
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 R.W., Minor Child, D.W., Mother, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-rw-minor-child-dw-mother-iowactapp-2015.