In the Interest of T.H. and T.H., Minor Children, E.R., Mother
This text of In the Interest of T.H. and T.H., Minor Children, E.R., Mother (In the Interest of T.H. and T.H., Minor Children, E.R., 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. 16-0092 Filed March 23, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF T.H. AND T.H., Minor Children,
E.R., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Annette L. Boehlje,
District Associate Judge.
The mother appeals the district court’s termination of her parental rights to
her children, T.H. and T.H. AFFIRMED.
Charles H. Biebesheimer of Stillman Law Firm, Clear Lake, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Patrick Rourick of Patrick J. Rourick Law Office, St. Ansgar, for minor
children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ. 2
VOGEL, Judge.
The mother appeals the district court’s termination of her parental rights to
her children, T.H.-1 and T.H.-2, asserting the relative-placement and parent-child
bond considerations found in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) and (c) (2015)
should preclude termination. Because neither the children’s placement nor any
bond was demonstrated to preclude termination, we affirm the order of the district
court.
T.H.-1, born November 2008, and T.H.-2, born March 2010, first came to
the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in August 2013,
due to reports of the parents’ methamphetamine use and domestic violence. The
children were adjudicated in need of assistance on February 26, 2014. After the
mother tested positive for methamphetamine, the children were removed under a
June 24, 2014 ex parte order. They were placed with the paternal grandparents
where they remained at the time of the termination hearing, with legal custody
remaining with DHS.
The mother was given supervised visitation, which she failed to regularly
attend. She was also offered a host of services to help her reunite with the
children, including critical substance abuse and mental health treatment. Her
participation was sporadic and her drug use continued.
The State filed a petition to terminate the mother’s rights, 1 and on
December 29, 2015, a hearing on the petition was held. The mother did not
1 The State also petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights, which the district court granted; however, he does not appeal. 3
attend, informing her counsel this was due to transportation problems.2
Following the hearing, the district court entered an order terminating the mother’s
parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f), finding it was
in the children’s best interests to do so. It further determined there were no
impediments to termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3). The mother
appeals.
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 children’s best
interests. Id.
On appeal, the mother does not contest the statutory grounds for
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f). Rather, she asserts
the permissive provisions of Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) and (c) should
preclude termination. Those provisions state:
The court need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child if the court finds any of the following: a. A relative has legal custody of the child. .... c. There is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.
Iowa Code § 232.116(3).
2 The hearing was continued from 9:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. to allow the mother time to arrive and present testimony. The court noted it: view[ed] this as another attempt by [the mother] to delay the process through a series of lies and lack of effort. Since she wasn’t even out of bed at the time the proceeding was set to start, it does not appear she had any real intention of attending the hearing, likely hoping it would again be continued. 4
As to paragraph (a), the children were placed with the paternal
grandparents, but DHS retained legal custody. Thus, that subsection does not
preclude termination. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014) (noting
section 232.116(3)(a) did not prevent termination when the child was living with
her grandparents but legal custody of the child remained with DHS). As to
paragraph (c), any claim of a bond between the mother and the children was
undermined by the mother’s erratic conduct at offered visitation. As noted by
DHS in a detailed report to the court, dated one month prior to the termination
hearing:
Since the removal of the children from her care, [the mother] has been offered supervised visits with the children. While she initially was consistent with following through with the scheduled visits, she was frequently late and ill prepared for the interactions. The interactions were generally chaotic with no sense of order. [The mother] was extremely overwhelmed with parenting the children and had a very difficult time dealing with [T.H.-2’s] behaviors. [The mother] would respond to [T.H.-2’s] negative behaviors with her own anger. Following an incident at her home during a supervised interaction where Law Enforcement was called due to [the mother’s] inability to control her temper, it was Court ordered that visits were to begin taking place in the community. [The mother] was consistently late or was a no show for her visits due to not arriving within the allotted time frame. Due to the negative impact this was having on the children, a collaborative decision was made by this worker and the children’s therapist to suspend [the mother’s] visits and phone calls with the children. This remains in place at this time. [The mother] has not been able to successfully move past supervised visits since the children were removed from her care on 6/24/14.
The author of that report testified at the termination hearing, stating that any bond
the mother claimed to have with the children was “unhealthy.”
In its order, the district court further noted:
Any sadness the children may experience because of termination does not overcome the likely long-term hardship and neglect the 5
children will suffer in the care of [the parents]. The Court simply cannot find that the parent-child relationship is so strong that it outweighs the need for termination. Despite any fondness or love between the parents and the children, it is not in the children’s best interest to wait any longer for permanency.
We agree with the court that any bond the mother claims to have with the
children has been severely strained by the negative impact her poor choices and
behavior have had on the children. Therefore, we agree that Iowa Code section
232.116(3)(c) does not preclude termination. Furthermore, the permissive
considerations found in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) and (c) do not
overcome the conclusion termination is in the children’s best interests. See In re
J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa 2012) (noting the factors set forth in this
section are permissive).
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.H. and T.H., Minor Children, E.R., Mother, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-th-and-th-minor-children-er-mother-iowactapp-2016.