IN THE INTEREST OF N.O. and D.B., Minor Children, A.B., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-933 / 06-1474
Filed November 30, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF N.O. and D.B.,
Minor Children,
A.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joe E. Smith, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
William Morris, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Christine Bisignano, West Des Moines, for father of N.O.
Jolie Juckette of Nelissen & Juckette, P.C., Des Moines, for father of D.B.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Christine Gonzales,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Jessica Miskimins of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor
children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her two
sons. Upon our de novo review, we affirm.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
Anissa is the mother of Dylan, born in July 2002, and Nathan, born in
January 2005. Timothy is the father of Dylan, and Casey is the father of Nathan.
In July 2005 the juvenile court removed the children from Anissa’s care based on
her drug abuse. The court adjudicated Dylan and Nathan as children in need of
assistance (CINA) on August 18, 2005. Nathan was placed in foster care, and
Dylan has been living with his father since May 2006.
On April 27, 2006, the State filed a petition to terminate Casey’s and
Anissa’s parental rights. At the termination hearing, Anissa admitted she has a
long history of drug abuse. She testified she has used methamphetamine for
nine years and she started using marijuana when she was eleven years old. She
has been through four inpatient drug treatment programs. Anissa claimed the
last time she used marijuana was in May 2006, but she tested positive for
marijuana in July 2006. At the termination hearing, Anissa testified she could not
have the children returned to her care because she did not “have a place or the
money for them to come home.” She claimed she could care for the children if
she was allowed to live at the House of Mercy.
The juvenile court terminated Casey’s and Anissa’s parental rights in an
order filed August 29, 2006. Anissa has appealed. 1
1
At the time of the termination hearing, Casey was incarcerated in Missouri. He
instructed his attorney to inform the court he wanted to maintain his parental rights, but
3
II.
Scope and Standards of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d
147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be supported by clear
and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). We are
primarily concerned with the children’s best interests in termination proceedings.
In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
III.
Discussion
On appeal, Anissa contends termination is not in the children’s best
interests. We find no merit in this claim.
The juvenile court terminated Anissa’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(d), 232.116(1)(h), 232.116(1)(i), and 232.116(1)(l)
(2005) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse or neglect, and circumstances
continue despite receipt of services; child is three or younger, child CINA,
removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned
home; child meets definition of CINA, child was in imminent danger, and services
would not correct conditions; child CINA, parent has substance abuse problem,
and child cannot be returned within a reasonable time). Anissa does not contend
the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination. We find clear and
convincing evidence supports the grounds for termination.
Even when the statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to
terminate parental rights must reflect the children’s best interests. In re M.S.,
519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
When we consider the children’s best
would present no evidence. He has not appealed from the termination of his parental
rights.
4
interests, we look to their long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re
C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). A child and family resource specialist
with Children and Families of Iowa recommended that the court terminate
Anissa’s parental rights because she had not adequately addressed her
substance abuse issues. The juvenile court found that despite Anissa’s receipt
of a plethora of services, she continued to abuse illegal drugs and her denial of
usage was not credible. 2 Furthermore, Anissa concedes her longest period of
sobriety during the CINA proceedings only lasted two months, and she admitted
she was unable to care for the children at the time of the termination hearing.
Dylan has been living with his father since May 5, 2006, and he has
adjusted well to his father’s home. Nathan has been in foster care for more than
a year, and the foster family is willing to adopt him. To continue to keep children
in temporary or even long-term foster homes is not in their best interests,
especially when the children are adoptable.
In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d at 175.
These children have waited long enough for their mother to resolve her issues
with illegal drugs. We agree with the juvenile court’s finding that termination of
Anissa’s parental rights is clearly in the children’s best interests.
IV.
Conclusion
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Anissa’s parental
rights.
AFFIRMED.
2
The juvenile court found Anissa was supposed to comply with drug testing twice a
week from July 13, 2005, to July 20, 2006. She only showed up for drug testing eight
times, and only one of the tests was completely negative for the presence of illegal
drugs.
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.
