IN THE INTEREST OF J.G. and C.G., Minor Children, J.J.G., Father, Appellant, K.A.K., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-997 / 06-1769
Filed December 28, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF J.G. and C.G.,
Minor Children,
J.J.G., Father,
Appellant,
K.A.K., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Lucy J. Gamon,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their
children. AFFIRMED.
Patricia J. Lipski, Fairfield, for appellant-father.
Katie E. McConnell of Lloyd, McConnell, & Davis. L.L.P., Washington, for
appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd. Assistant
Attorney General, and John Schroeder, County Attorney for appellee.
Joel Yates, Oskaloosa, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their
children. They contend the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite
them with their children. The also contend the juvenile court erred in denying
their motion to continue.
The mother contends termination is not in the
children’s’ best interests. Our review is de novo. In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690,
691 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).
The children were brought to the attention of the Department of Human
Services (DHS) in 2004 following a report of domestic abuse.
Following an
investigation, the children tested positive for marijuana exposure. They were
adjudicated in need of assistance in August 2004. The father was ordered to
maintain a separate residence and the children continued in the care of their
mother.
In February 2005, the father left the State for approximately eight
months without notifying the DHS.
The children were removed from their mother’s care in July 2005 after the
mother left C.G., then two years old, alone in his crib for approximately thirty to
forty-five minutes while she left the house. They were placed in foster care
approximately two hours away. The mother did not consistently visit with the
children. She claimed to have difficulty obtaining transportation for visitation.
Both parents requested the DHS provide transportation assistance.
Things did not go well for the mother in the first half of 2006. She twice
was expelled from residential treatment facilities for failure to comply with
recommendations; she was arrested for public intoxication (twice), disorderly
3
conduct, and shoplifting; and she was arrested on a probation violation and
incarcerated until July 17, 2006.
At the time of termination, the mother had made improvements, having
participated in numerous services to address her substance abuse and improve
her parenting skills. Meanwhile, the father had not completed substance abuse
treatment or a batterer’s education program.
We first address the parents’ claim regarding reasonable efforts. Iowa
Code section 232.102(7) (2005) requires the DHS to make reasonable efforts to
return a child to their parent. Services are to be offered to improve parenting
skills. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). The reasonable efforts
requirement is not a strict substantive requirement for termination. Id. Instead,
the services provided by DHS to reunify parent and child after removal impacts
the State’s burden of proving the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a
parent. Id.
The parents argue the State failed to make reasonable efforts in failing to
provide transportation assistance, in failing to move the children to a foster home
nearer to them, and in failing to drug test them. Even had these services been
offered to the parents, termination would still have been appropriate as both
parents admit they could not be reunited with their children at the time of the
termination hearing. Transportation assistance to visitations and additional drug
testing would not have resolved the underlying reasons for termination.
We further conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the parents’ motion for a continuance. See In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279,
281 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (“We review a motion for continuance under an abuse
4
of discretion standard and will only reverse if injustice will result to the party
desiring the continuance.”).
At the termination hearing, the parents made a
motion for a three-month continuance so that a home study could be conducted
on a maternal uncle in Alabama for possible placement. In denying the motion,
the district court noted that the time guidelines for termination set forth in Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(f) and (h) had passed and that nearly sixty days had
passed since the filing of the termination petition. Because the maternal uncle
could still be considered as a placement for the children following termination, the
court did not abuse its discretion.
The mother contends termination is not in the children’s best interests.
We disagree.
Although the mother made improvement in the three months
leading up to termination, she was still not able to resume care of her children.
The mother has twice had her children removed from her care and did not
attempt to improve her situation for over one year. She left her two-year old child
unattended and exposed her children to marijuana and methamphetamine. As
the juvenile court noted:
[The mother] squandered nearly two years of case time
leading a chaotic lifestyle marked by substance abuse,
inappropriate paramours, and criminal violations. [The mother] has
seemed to do better only in the last several months when faced
with the immediate prospect of losing custody of her children
forever. At least partially as a result of a serious car accident, [the
mother] has some cognitive disabilities which render it unlikely that
she will ever be able to appropriately care for her children. While
these issues are not [the mother’s] “fault,” they certainly impact on
planning for permanency and the children’s best interest in this
case.
The mother’s past neglect is an indication of the quality of her future care.
See In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000). Moreover “[a] child’s safety
5
and the need for a permanent home are now the primary concerns when
determining a child’s best interests.” In re J.E., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa
2006) (Cady, J. concurring specially) (citing In re K.M., 653 N.W.2d 602, 608
(2002) (noting “the child’s safety and need for a permanent home” are “the
concerns that clearly impact a child’s best interests”)).
We affirm the order terminating the mother and father’s parental rights.
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.
