IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.P. and J.A.P. , Minor Children, H.L.P., Mother
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 15 / 07–1388
Filed February 15, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.P. and J.A.P.,
Minor Children,
H.L.P., Mother,
Appellant,
M.J.P., Father,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County,
Marsha M. Beckelman, Judge.
State seeks further review of court of appeals decision reversing
juvenile court order terminating parental rights. DECISION OF COURT
OF
APPEALS
VACATED;
JUDGMENT
OF
DISTRICT
COURT
AFFIRMED.
Natalie H. Cronk of Law Office of Natalie H. Cronk, Iowa City, for
appellant mother.
Jacob R. Koller of Simmons Perrine PLC, Cedar Rapids, for
appellant father.
2
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd,
Assistant Attorney General, and Kristin Parks, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
3
PER CURIAM.
The State has asked this court to review the decision of the court
of appeals reversing the juvenile court’s judgment terminating the rights
of a mother and father to their two daughters.
The appeal turns on
whether the State has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the
children cannot be returned to the home.
See Iowa Code §§ 232.102,
.116(1)(f)(4), .116(1)(h)(4) (2007). We vacate the court of appeals decision
and affirm the judgment of the district court.
Recognizing that the parents “have been largely compliant and
cooperative with services provided,” the juvenile court nonetheless
terminated the parents’ parental rights because it concluded it was “not
clear from the evidence that [the parents] will be able to provide a
suitable family environment for their daughters in the future on an
ongoing basis.” The juvenile court was specifically concerned that the
parents would not “adequately protect their children from further abuse.”
On appeal, the court of appeals, with one judge dissenting,
concluded “[t]he State [had] failed to show by clear and convincing
evidence that the children cannot be returned home or that the problems
that led to their removal have not been corrected.” The court of appeals
acknowledged the older daughter, S.L.P., “has some problems,” but
concluded “[t]here was no evidence that S.L.P. cannot or will not receive
such help in her parents’ care.”
The record establishes that in addition to witnessing several
incidents of domestic violence between her parents, S.L.P. was sexually
abused while in her parents’ care. Although the source of that abuse
and the extent to which her parents were aware of it remains unclear, it
is not subject to serious dispute that S.L.P. experienced significant
trauma in her biological family and further psychological damage from
4
being required by her parents to keep these traumas secret. Because of
S.L.P.’s extreme sexualized behaviors after removal from her parents,
S.L.P. and her younger sister are in treatment level foster care. Clearly,
S.L.P. remains in need of therapy, and it is critical to her future wellbeing that she be protected from any further trauma. We agree with the
trial court’s observation that “[s]he is vulnerable to future psychological
problems which will be more severe if she is exposed to any further
violence or abuse.”
Although the parents have completed drug treatment, maintained
a clean and safe home, obtained consistent employment, attended
marital and individual counseling, and attended all visitations, they have
not completely acknowledged the abuse and violence to which their
daughter was subjected. The father continues to minimize the dangers
to his children of being unsupervised while in his care, and the mother’s
personality is such that she is easily influenced by her husband.
Moreover, a psychological report stated that the mother’s “borderline
impaired cognitive abilities may make it difficult for her to understand
the impact of her behaviors on her children” and her “low intellectual
abilities and dependence may impair her ability to protect herself and her
children from abusive behaviors if they occur in the future.”
Neither parent appreciates the necessity of aggressively protecting
their children from harm, even though S.L.P.’s future well-being depends
on exactly that. In the absence of this critical insight, S.L.P.’s younger
sister is at risk to experience the same type of abuse and trauma
sustained by S.L.P..
Consequently, notwithstanding the progress the
parents have made in other areas, without an understanding of the
importance of protecting their daughters from further trauma, they are
not in a position to resume care of their children.
5
We agree with the district court that the State has met its burden
to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the children cannot be
returned to their parents’ care, and that the parents’ rights should be
terminated.
Accordingly, we vacate the court of appeals decision and
affirm the judgment of the district court.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
This opinion shall not be published.
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.
