In the Interest of S.M., S.M., and H.M., Minor Children, K.B., Mother
This text of In the Interest of S.M., S.M., and H.M., Minor Children, K.B., Mother (In the Interest of S.M., S.M., and H.M., Minor Children, K.B., 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. 14-2088 Filed February 25, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF S.M., S.M., and H.M., Minor Children,
K.B., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne
Mefford, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.
AFFIRMED.
Eric J. Palmer, Oskaloosa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Charles A. Stream, County Attorney, and Amy E. Zenor,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Amber L. Thompson, Sigourney, for father.
Terri A. Menninga, Pella, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, J.
A mother appeals1 the termination of her parental rights to three children.
She claims (1) there was not a showing of clear and convincing evidence she
lacked the ability to care for the children, (2) she should have been allowed
additional time to prove her parenting skills, and (3) termination was not in the
best interests of the children. Since the mother failed to cite to a specific ground
relied upon by the juvenile court, we find she failed to preserve error on issues
one and two. We find, due to the children’s need for permanency, it is in their
best interests to terminate the mother’s parental rights, and we affirm the ruling of
the juvenile court.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The children H.M., S.M., and S.M., were born in 2005, 2006, and 2007,
respectively. The children came to the attention of the Department of Human
Services (DHS) in February 2013, due to concerns about physical abuse and
inadequate shelter. At this time, the DHS removed the children from the parents’
care and placed them in foster care. The children were adjudicated children in
need of assistance (CINA) on March 8, 2013, pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(b) (2013) due to ongoing concerns of physical abuse or neglect.
A case permanency plan was established at a dispositional hearing in
April 2013. The plan outlined the various steps the parents would need to take to
allow the children to return home safely. Service providers reported the mother
was non-cooperative and often antagonistic with them. The providers also
1 The father voluntarily consented to the termination of his parental rights, and he does not appeal. 3
reported the children were receptive to services and have improved dramatically.
A permanency hearing was held in February 2014. The court found if the
children were allowed to return home they would suffer from a lack of supervision
and inappropriate living conditions, and it was in their best interests to remain in
foster care. The State filed a petition to terminate the parents’ rights in July
2014.
The district court entered its order terminating the mother’s parental rights
on December 2, 2014, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (f).
The mother now appeals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings, especially
assessing witness credibility, although we are not bound by them. In re D.W.,
791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). An order terminating parental rights will be
upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under
Iowa Code section 232.116. Id. Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there
are no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of
law drawn from the evidence. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Iowa Code chapter 232, concerning the termination of parental rights,
follows a three-step analysis. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. The court must first
determine whether a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has been
established. Id. If a ground for termination has been established, the court must 4
apply the best-interest framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if the
grounds for termination should result in termination of parental rights. Id. Finally,
if the statutory best-interest framework supports termination of parental rights,
the court must consider if any of the statutory exceptions set out in section
232.116(3) weigh against the termination of parental rights. Id.
A. Grounds for Termination
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the
sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa
1999). The mother’s failure to raise an issue regarding section 232.116(1)(d)
and (f) means she has waived that issue on appeal. See Iowa R. App. P.
6.903(2)(g)(3) (“Failure to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed
waiver of that issue.”).
B. Best Interests of the Children
Even if a statutory ground for termination is met, a decision to terminate
must still be in the best interests of the children following a review of section
232.116(2). P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 37. In determining the best interests of the
children, we give primary consideration 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 conditions and needs of the child[ren].”
See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The mother appears to claim termination is not in
the children’s best interests due to a strong bond between her and the children.
At the time of the termination proceeding, S.M. and S.M. had been out of their 5
mother’s care for two years and three months, and H.M. had been out of his
mother’s care for two years and seven months. The record shows the bond
between S.M. and S.M. and their foster parents can be described as “extremely
strong,” and the children refer to the foster parents as “mom” and “dad,”—the
bond with their mother is “non-existent.” The bond between H.M. and his foster
parents is described as “good,” but he is also bonded with his mother. The
record shows the mother has struggled to understand and implement positive
parenting practices after years of DHS provided services. See In re L.L., 459
N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990) (“Children simply cannot wait for responsible
parenting. Parenting cannot be turned off and on like a spigot. It must be
constant, responsible, and reliable.”). H.M. needs a structured and stable home
now. He should not be forced to continue waiting for his mother to be a constant
and reliable parent. We find the best interests of the children are served by
allowing them to remain in the care of their foster parents, as this placement will
best serve their mental, emotional, and physical needs.
IV. CONCLUSION
There is clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist
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 S.M., S.M., and H.M., Minor Children, K.B., Mother, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-sm-sm-and-hm-minor-children-kb-mother-iowactapp-2015.