In the Interest of T.G., Minor Child, V.G., Mother
This text of In the Interest of T.G., Minor Child, V.G., Mother (In the Interest of T.G., Minor Child, V.G., 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. 16-1205 Filed September 14, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF T.G., Minor child,
V.G., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Louise M. Jacobs,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in
2013. AFFIRMED.
Cole J. Mayer of Masterson, Bottenberg & Eichorn, L.L.P., Waukee, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem
for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ. 2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in
2013. She argues (I) the district court should have granted her a six-month
extension to work towards reunification, (II) termination was not in the child’s best
interests, and (III) the court should have found an exception to termination based
on the parent-child bond and the child’s placement with the maternal
grandmother.
I. Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) (2015) allows a court to grant a parent a
six-month extension if it appears “the need for removal of the child from the
child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.”
The mother asserts she should have been afforded an extension because she
was attending visits, attempting to work with the child’s therapist and her own
therapist, and trying to obtain stable housing. On our de novo review, we are not
persuaded by this assertion.
The mother came to the attention of the department of human services
following a high-speed chase of a vehicle in which she was riding with her young
child, whom she failed to place in a car seat. The mother was arrested on an
outstanding warrant and was jailed for violating her probation from a theft
conviction. The child was placed with relatives. On her release from jail a month
later, the mother visited the child and participated in therapy. However, three
months after the car chase, she disappeared.
The mother was rearrested a month later and remained in jail for the
ensuing four months. Following her second release, she participated in two
supervised visits with the child but only sporadically attended twice-weekly visits 3
after that point. The child’s therapist offered the mother joint therapy with her
child. According to a department report, the mother “did not proceed with this
service.” She also failed to engage with her own therapist. At the termination
hearing, she acknowledged she had not seen the therapist for a month and had
“only met with her three times” during the proceedings. As for the mother’s living
situation, she testified she was staying with friends. When asked about her plan
to move forward on housing, she responded, “Well, yesterday I went and picked
up some applications for some apartments.” Because the mother failed to avail
herself of the services that were provided following the child’s removal, there was
little reason to believe she would take advantage of these services during a six-
month extension period.
II. Termination of parental rights must be in the best interests of the child.
See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). The mother had yet to obtain
housing, declined to participate in therapy, and failed to foster the bond she
shared with the child. The service provider who supervised visits expressed
concern about what the child “was going through with the missed visits.” She
opined the mother was not in a position to provide consistency, support, and a
nurturing environment for the child. Termination was in the child’s best interests.
III. The mother contends the district court should have invoked statutory
exceptions to termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3); P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41.
For the reasons discussed above, we disagree.
We affirm the mother’s termination of her parental rights to the child.
AFFIRMED.
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 T.G., Minor Child, V.G., Mother, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-tg-minor-child-vg-mother-iowactapp-2016.