IN THE INTEREST OF K.R ., S.S., Jr., and E.R., Minor Children, R.R., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-865 / 06-1438
Filed November 16, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF K.R., S.S., Jr., and E.R.,
Minor Children,
R.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla Fultz, Associate
Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Susan Kelsey Brooks, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
David Pargulski, Des Moines, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Annette Taylor,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Jason Hauser, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Robin appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her three
children. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Robin is the mother of Eric, born in 1992; Steven Jr., born in 1995; and
Katarina, born in 1997. The children were first removed from Robin’s care in
January 2001 after she tested positive for methamphetamines.
The children
were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) in February 2001. Robin
participated in therapy, substance abuse treatment, and other services. Eric and
Katarina were returned to Robin’s care in August 2001, and review hearings in
the CINA case continued.
Due to behavioral issues and other problems,
Steven’s need for services prevented placement with Robin, although he was
returned to her custody for a short time in 2003. 1
Eric and Katarina were removed from Robin’s custody again in April 2005
after Robin provided a positive drug screen for methamphetamine.
The two
children were placed with their maternal grandmother. Robin was ordered to
move from the maternal grandmother’s home, where she had been living with the
children.
A no-contact order was entered in April 2005 after Robin had
unauthorized contact with the children. In June 2005 the order was amended to
allow supervised contact. A second no-contact order was entered in December
2005.
1
Steven was eventually placed in a psychiatric medical institution for children (PMIC),
where he remained until shortly before the termination hearing, when he was placed with
his grandmother.
3
In June 2005 Robin provided a positive drug screen for marijuana and
cocaine. Robin was generally uncooperative and did not participate in services
during this time. She did not attend a review hearing in February 2006. She did
not provide another drug screen until May 2006, which came back negative.
Robin’s last approved and supervised visit with the children was on
September 12, 2005.
Robin was jailed in January 2006 for violation of the no-contact order.
She violated the no-contact order again in April 2006. She was later arrested as
a result of the violation, found in contempt of court, and sentenced to six months
in the county jail with all but seven days suspended. 2
The State filed a petition to terminate parental rights on April 6, 2006,
alleging termination was appropriate pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (l) (2005). Hearing was held on July 18, 2006.
The juvenile court filed its ruling on August 22, 2006, terminating Robin’s parental
rights as to all three children. Robin appeals. 3
II. Standard of Review
Our review is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The
grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re
T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best
2
The contempt hearing was held on July 13, 2006, and sentencing occurred the
following day.
3
The court also terminated the parental rights of Katarina’s and Steven Jr.’s father. He
has not appealed. The parental rights of Eric’s father, who is unknown, were also
terminated.
4
interests of the children. In re J.J.S., Jr., 628 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa Ct. App.
2001).
III. Discussion
Robin contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by
clear and convincing evidence and that termination is not in the children’s best
interests. She also claims a violation of her due process rights.
Robin argues the State’s requirement that she, an indigent parent, pay for
services violates her constitutional right to due process. We conclude Robin has
failed to properly preserve error by raising the issue in the juvenile court. See In
re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003) (“Even issues implicating constitutional
rights must be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in order to
preserve error for appeal.”). Therefore, we have nothing to review.
The juvenile court terminated Robin’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (l).
We acknowledge
termination of Robin’s parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(g) (child
adjudicated CINA, parent’s rights to another child were terminated, parent does
not respond to services) was in error, as this section applied only to the father’s
parental rights. However, when the juvenile court terminates parental rights on
more than one statutory ground, we need only find termination proper under one
ground to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
Termination under section 232.116(1)(f) is appropriate where:
(1) The children are four or older.
(2) The children have been adjudicated children in need of
assistance.
(3) The children have been removed from the physical custody of
the parent for at least twelve of the last eighteen months.
5
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time
the children cannot be returned to the custody of the parent.
Robin contends the State failed to prove the children could not be returned to her
custody at the present time.
Robin showed no interest in participating in services until May 2006, after
the termination petition was filed. At the time of the termination hearing, Robin
was in custody as a result of her violation of the no-contact order. She was living
in transitional housing and testified children were not allowed to live there. She
had recently gained employment, which she testified would remain available after
her release from jail. She testified it would take two months to save enough
money for an apartment.
Robin claimed she last used illegal substances in
February 2006, but had provided no drug screens between June 2005 and May
2006 to support this claim.
“We must reasonably limit the time for parents to be in a position to
assume care of their child because patience with the parents can soon translate
into intolerable hardship for the child.” In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1997). Once the statutory limits established in section 232.116 have
passed, “the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the
parents.” Id. It is clear from the record that the children cannot be returned to
Robin’s custody at this time. We affirm the termination of Robin’s parental rights
on statutory grounds.
Even if the statutory requirements for termination are met, the decision to
terminate must still be in the children’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d
6
398, 400 (Iowa 1994). The juvenile court made the following findings related to
the children’s best interests:
[Robin] has not been able to utilize the many services made
available to her. She lacks insight into the harms her lifestyle has
visited on her children. Although she has made progress very
recently, she has done too little, too late. Her history militates
against her maintaining the course of action she has so recently
begun. Her children have suffered greatly from waiting for her to be
able to be a parent. They should not have to wait any longer for a
permanent home. Evidence presented indicates their behavior has
already been affected by the uncertainty in their lives because of
their mother’s actions. Steven has been most severely affected as
evidenced by his placement in a PMIC facility until recently when
he was placed with his grandmother. They need a stable
permanent home environment to allow them to grow to be welladjusted, happy adults.
The record fully supports these findings, and we adopt them as our own.
Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating Robin’s parental
rights to her three children.
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.