IN THE INTEREST OF M.B., Minor child, T.K.M.B., Mother, Appellant, J.W.B., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-598 / 06-0906
Filed August 23, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF M.B.,
Minor child,
T.K.M.B., Mother,
Appellant,
J.W.B., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Michael R.
Stewart, District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the termination of their parental rights to
their daughter. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey A. Smith, Oskaloosa, for appellant mother.
Joel D. Yates of Clements, Pothoven, Stravers & Yates, Oskaloosa, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Charles A. Stream, County Attorney, and Misty White-Reinier,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Randy Degeest, Oskaloosa, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
HECHT, J.
Jeffrey and Tekins are the parents of Mercades, who was born in
November of 2000. The family first came to the attention of the juvenile court in
July of 2004 when a petition was filed alleging Mercades to be a child in need of
assistance (CINA). The petition was based on the parents’ positive drug tests for
amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana, as well as Mercades’s positive
test for methamphetamine and marijuana. Mercades was later adjudicated CINA
and was initially placed with Jeffrey, as Tekins was entering an inpatient drug
treatment program. However, in September, Mercades was placed in foster care
due to Jeffrey’s imminent placement in a halfway house program. On February
28, 2006, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of
Jeffrey and Tekins.
Following a hearing, the court granted the petition and
terminated their rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2005).
Both
Jeffrey and Tekins appeal from this order.
We review termination of parental rights orders de novo. In re R.F., 471
N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the
child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
I. Could Mercades be returned to her parents’ care? Jeffrey and Tekins
both argue, first, that the court erred in its finding that Mercades could not be
returned to their care. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4). Upon our careful de novo
review of the record, we concur in the juvenile court’s finding on this issue. As
the court noted, both parents have a significant and long-term history of
substance abuse that has clearly impacted and endangered Mercades. After
Jeffrey was released from a halfway house program, he resumed custody of
3
Mercades and subsequently relapsed. As the juvenile court noted, by May of
2005 Jeffrey “had stopped contacting the service provider, was no longer taking
the child to daycare, had stopped going to work and lost his job, had reunited
with [Tekins], and was using methamphetamine.” When she was removed in
June of 2005, Mercades was found to be filthy, hungry, and suffering from an
extremely bad case of head lice.
Despite her reported period of abstinence at the time of the termination
hearing, Tekins has a history of failed drug treatments.
Further, at the
termination hearing, both Jeffrey and Tekins conceded that their current
residence was inappropriate for Mercades and that she could not be returned
immediately to their care. Finally, at the time of the termination hearing, neither
parent had even progressed past fully supervised visits.
II.
Mercades’s best interests.
Both Jeffrey and Tekins maintain
termination was not in Mercades’s best interest. For reasons similar to those
noted in the preceding division of this opinion, we find termination is in the child’s
best interests.
Mercades was five years old at the time of the termination
hearing. A large portion of her short life has been spent dealing with her parents’
immaturity and drug use. The resulting instability has apparently long plagued
Jeffrey and Tekins as the record establishes that in 1997 their parental rights to
another child were terminated, based largely on their drug use and the child’s
exposure to those drugs. Mercades cannot wait any longer for her parents to
finally establish they have the maturity and insight necessary to raise a child in a
healthy and nurturing environment. In re D.C., 436 N.W.2d 644, 645 (Iowa Ct.
4
App. 1988) (noting that insight into a child’s future can be gained form evidence
of the parents’ past performance).
III. Continuance of the termination hearing. Finally, Jeffrey and Tekins
contend the juvenile court erred in denying Tekins’s request for a continuance.
Tekins notes that on May 11, 2006, her original attorney, Karen Taylor,
requested a continuance of the trial due to a scheduling conflict. After denying
the motion on May 16, the court granted Taylor’s motion to withdraw. Trial was
held on the following day, and the termination order which provoked this appeal
followed.
We first conclude Jeffrey lacks the necessary standing to raise this issue
because the record does not support a determination that he joined in Tekins’s
motion for continuance or that he made his own such request.
Accordingly,
Jeffrey lacks “a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain
judicial resolution of the controversy.” Birkhofer ex rel. Johannsen v. Brammeier,
610 N.W.2d 844, 847 (Iowa 2000). We further conclude the court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Tekins’s request for a continuance. The denial of a
motion for continuance must be unreasonable under the circumstances to justify
reversal. Michael v. Harrison County Rural Elec. Coop., 292 N.W.2d 417, 419
(Iowa 1980). Because the motion was filed on the eve of the termination hearing,
and Tekins fails to suggest what difference the granting of such a motion would
have made in the outcome, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s ruling.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
