IN THE INTEREST OF E.A., Minor Child, K.A.A., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-978 / 06-1711
Filed December 28, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF E.A., Minor Child,
K.A.A., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her son.
AFFIRMED.
Cory R. Speth of Krug Law Firm, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellantmother
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold L. Denton, County Attorney, and Rebecca Belcher,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Mary McGee-Light, Assistant Public Defender, Cedar Rapids, for father.
H. Nick Gloe of Gloe & Quint, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
The mother of a child born in May of 2005 appeals from the juvenile court
order terminating her parental rights to her son. She contends the State did not
meet its burden of proof for either statutory ground relied on by the court and
termination is not in the child’s interest. We affirm.
I. Background
From August of 2005 until his removal in December of that year, the child
lived with his maternal grandfather, and his mother would care for him at times
on weekends. He was removed from his mother’s care in December, based on
allegations his parents were using illegal drugs. He was placed in the care of his
maternal great aunt and uncle under the protective supervision of the
Department of Human Services. In July of 2006, placement was changed to his
maternal grandfather with the consent of all parties and the State petitioned to
terminate both parents’ rights. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated
both of his parents’ parental rights.
II. Scope of review
Our review of child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings is de novo. In re
C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002). We review the facts and the law and
adjudicate rights anew. In re H.G., 601 N.W.2d 84, 85 (Iowa 1999). We give
weight to the juvenile court's factual findings but are not bound by them. In re
E.H. III, 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998).
The parent-child relationship is
constitutionally protected. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S. Ct. 549,
554, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 519 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S.
Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 35 (1972). The State has the burden of proving
3
the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Iowa Code § 232.96(2) (2005).
“Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence leaving “no serious or substantial
doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from it.” In re D.D., 653
N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002) (quoting Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621, 624
(Iowa Ct. App. 1983)).
III. Discussion
Clear and convincing evidence. The mother contends the State did not
provide clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights under
either section 232.116(1)(e) or 232.116(1)(h).
When the juvenile court
terminates a parent’s rights on more than one statutory ground, we affirm if clear
and convincing evidence supports the termination under one of the cited
provisions. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). We focus on
section 232.116(1)(h) (child is three or younger, in need of assistance, removed
from home for six of last twelve months, and cannot be returned home).
At the time of the termination hearing, the mother had not completed
recommended substance abuse treatment, had not progressed beyond
supervised visitation, did not have her own housing, had no stable income, had
contact with persons who used illegal drugs, and had not participated in services
designed to improve her parenting skills. The statutory provisions for termination
of parental rights “are preventative as well as remedial . . . [and] therefore
mandate action to prevent probable harm to a child and do not require delay until
after harm has occurred.” In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981).
We find clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned to the
4
mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.
See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(h)(4).
Although not set forth as separate claim on appeal, the mother argues
termination is not in the child’s best interest and it would be “devastating” to the
child because of the strong parent-child bond.
The juvenile court concluded termination “unquestionably” is in the child’s
interest. This child is in the care of the maternal grandfather, who wants to adopt
if his mother’s parental rights are terminated. The mother has not demonstrated
the ability to parent her child successfully.
The child needs and deserves
permanency, security, safety, and a family. The parents cannot provide these
needs.
Under section 232.116(3)(c), the juvenile court may decline to terminate
parental rights based on “clear and convincing evidence that the termination
would be detrimental to the child due to the closeness of the parent-child
relationship.” Although the juvenile court found the mother “has bonded” with the
child, we find no indication in the record or the termination order this issue was
raised in the termination proceeding or decided by the juvenile court. It is not
preserved for our review. See In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct. App.
1994).
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.
