IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.S. and M.V.S., Minor Children, S.M.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-485 / 06-0719
Filed July 26, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.S. and M.V.S.,
Minor Children,
S.M.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Kristin L. Hibbs,
Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to two
children. AFFIRMED.
Michael M. Lindeman of Lindeman Law Firm, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Connie S. Ricklefs, County Attorney, and Robert Hruska,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Pamela Lewis, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
HECHT, J.
Sky is the mother of Morgan, who was born in 2003, and Michael, who
was born in 2004. Morgan was first removed from Sky’s custody in March of
2003 following a domestic abuse incident between Sky and her husband
Michael, Sr. After this incident, Sky stipulated to the State’s position that Morgan
was a child in need of assistance (CINA). Michael and Morgan, who had been
since returned to Sky’s custody, were removed from her care in April of 2005
after Sky tested positive for the presence of a prescription pain medication and
cocaine metabolites. After their removal, both children tested positive for cocaine
and Michael was subsequently adjudicated as CINA. On December 6, 2005, the
State filed a petition seeking to terminate Sky’s parental rights to Morgan and
Michael. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated her rights pursuant to
Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2005). Sky appeals from this order.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than
one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by
clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1995). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests
of the children. In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981).
On appeal, Sky first maintains the State failed to support its termination
petition by clear and convincing evidence. Second, she maintains the “State
failed to meet its burden of proof concerning the necessity of termination.” We
interpret this as a best-interests argument.
3
Sky believes termination was inappropriate because she has largely met
the expectations of the permanency plan, attended visitation, maintained stable
housing, and held two jobs. However, upon our careful de novo review of the
record, we conclude the termination of Sky’s parental rights was appropriate
under section 232.116(1)(l) which requires proof by clear and convincing
evidence that Sky has a “severe, chronic substance abuse problem, and
presents a danger to self or others . . . [and that] the child will not be able to be
returned to the custody of the parent within a reasonable time . . . .”. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(l).
Much of the evidence and testimony presented at trial centered on Sky’s
longstanding and substantial drug usage. Sky reported to a substance abuse
evaluator that she had been drinking prior to the incident in which Morgan was
first removed from her care. She later reported to having started using drugs at
the age of sixteen, and to having used alcohol, methamphetamine, ecstasy,
cocaine, marijuana, and LSD. The children’s April 2005 removal was prompted
by Sky’s positive urinalysis for a prescription drug and cocaine metabolites.
Following that removal, both Morgan and Michael tested positive for cocaine, and
in November of 2005, Sky tested positive for marijuana. Between April of 2005
and the termination hearing Sky was requested to provide thirty-six drug screens;
however, she only provided eleven, three of which were diluted. At the time of
termination, Sky was living with a man who had a “history of substance abuse
and non-compliance with substance abuse treatment.”
Despite the expectations of DHS and her participation in substance abuse
treatment, Sky still found it appropriate to be a “social drinker” at the time of the
4
termination hearings. Based on this troubling history of Sky’s substance abuse
and her repeated exposure of Morgan and Michael to the dangers arising from
her drug addiction, we find no reasonable prospects that the children can soon, if
ever, be returned to Sky’s custody.
Rather, the clear evidence provides no
confidence Sky will maintain sobriety or provide the children a safe, nurturing,
and otherwise appropriate home. We find termination of Sky’s parental rights to
Morgan and Michael is in their best interests and affirm the ruling of the juvenile
court.
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.
