IN THE INTEREST OF A.B. and D.A., Minor Children, E.B., Mother, Appellant, S.R.B., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-800 / 06-1282
Filed October 25, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF A.B. and D.A.,
Minor Children,
E.B., Mother,
Appellant,
S.R.B., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Mary L.
Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights
to two children. AFFIRMED.
Andrew J. Smith, Storm Lake, for appellant-father.
John Loughlin of Loughlin Law Firm, Cherokee, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S.Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Phil Havens, County Attorney, for appellee.
Karla J. Henderson of Forristal & Henderson Law Firm, Holstein, guardian
ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
Erin is the mother, and Sven the father, of Derrek, born in December
1998, and Andreas, born in September 2000. Sven appeals from an August
2006 juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to the children. The
order also terminated Erin’s parental rights, but her appeal was dismissed in
September 2006. We affirm.
The juvenile court terminated Sven’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2005) (child adjudicated a child in need of
assistance (CINA) as a result of physical or sexual abuse or neglect by parents,
circumstances continue to exist despite offer or receipt of services) and (e) (child
adjudicated CINA, child removed from physical custody of parents at least six
consecutive months, parents have not maintained significant and meaningful
contact with child in previous six consecutive months and have made no
reasonable efforts to resume care of child despite opportunity to do so). On
appeal Sven challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the final element
of each of those two provisions.
He also challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to prove that the best interests of the children are served by termination
of his parental rights.
We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we
are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court’s findings of
fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. The
primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of
the child. To support the termination of parental rights, the State
must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section
232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).
3
When the trial court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory
ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the statutory
grounds in order to affirm. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
We choose to focus on section 232.116(1)(d).
Fifteen-month-old Derrek was removed from his parents’ physical custody
in March 2000 when Sven smeared feces on his face because he believed
Derrek should have been potty-trained by nine months of age and he bruised
Derrek’s buttocks, left hip, right leg, and right hand in disciplining him. Derrek
was adjudicated a CINA in May 2000 based on physical abuse. A child abuse
investigation found that Sven had physically abused Derrek and that Erin was
also responsible for Derrek’s abuse by failing to protect him. Erin and Sven were
offered numerous services over the following two years. Derrek remained out of
the home for about fifteen months. The CINA proceeding was dismissed in May
2002 despite significant remaining concerns regarding the parents’ ability and
desire to properly parent the children, including but not limited to their use of
inappropriate means of discipline.
As a result of an incident that occurred in June 2003 Sven was arrested
and charged with child endangerment, for physical abuse of Andreas. Another
CINA petition was filed, and the children were placed with Erin, subject to an
order that Sven had no contact with them. Services, including family centered
services, anger management counseling, and family unity services were provided
or offered to Sven. Sven pled guilty to child endangerment. In October 2003 the
children were adjudicated CINA for physical abuse and lack of appropriate
supervision. By April 2004 Sven had moved back into the parties’ home.
4
In February 2005 the children were removed from their parents based on
allegations of physical abuse by both parents. Following hearing the juvenile
court found the removal appropriate and continued custody of the children with
the Iowa Department of Human Services.
The court found that despite
numerous services over several years, “nothing has really changed.
The
allegation that fueled the previous abuse reports and Child in Need of Assistance
adjudication in this family remain active today.”
In its termination ruling the juvenile court noted that following a November
2004 review hearing it had found, in part:
The Department of Human Services and Juvenile Court
have been involved with this family for a significant amount of time.
This is the second time that these children have been adjudicated
Children in Need of Assistance. It is clear that the family continues
to need services to help them; however, it is difficult for them to
make the changes they need in their family dynamics to raise welladjusted children.
In its termination ruling the court further found, in part:
Within four months, it became more than abundantly clear that
there had been no significant changes of a long-lasting nature in
this family’s dynamics since the family first came to the court’s
attention in 2000. It was repeatedly stated throughout reports that
neither [Sven nor] Erin felt they had any changes to make.
We fully agree with and adopt these findings of the juvenile court, as well as its
resulting conclusion the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the
circumstances which led to the October 2003 CINA adjudication continue to exist
despite the offer or receipt of services.
We reject Sven’s challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence concerning the second element of section
232.116(1)(d), and find that the statutory grounds for termination pursuant to that
provision were proved.
5
Sven claims, “Insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the
best interests of the children are served by the termination of parental rights.”
Derrek has rather severe behavioral problems, and Andreas has somewhat less
severe behavioral problems. Both had improved in the period shortly preceding
the termination hearing. The juvenile court concluded, in part:
The record is more than clear that these children have
suffered emotionally, physically, and mentally at the hands of their
parents. They have suffered emotionally and mentally as a result
of their parents’ complacent attitude while not in their care.
....
The Court’s patience with Erin and [Sven] has been
exhaustive to this point. Now, however, the Court’s patience has
run out. The Court finds that the best chance for these children to
secure permanency and stability in life is for the parental rights of
Erin and [Sven] to be terminated.
We agree with the juvenile court. Derrek and Andreas have for many
years led abused and disrupted lives.
We conclude termination of Sven’s
parental rights is necessary and in their best interest in order to allow them the
opportunity to acquire the permanency, stability, and security they need and
deserve.
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.
