IN THE INTEREST OF R.C., V.C., C.W., and N.H., Minor Children, J.H., Mother, Appellant, R.C., Father of R.C. and V.C., Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-589 / 06-0675
Filed August 9, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF R.C., V.C., C.W., and N.H.,
Minor Children,
J.H., Mother,
Appellant,
R.C., Father of R.C. and V.C.,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to four children. AFFIRMED.
Aaron H. Ginkens of Ginkins Law Firm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Christine Bisignano, West Des Moines, for appellant father of R.C. and
V.C.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Faye Jenkins,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Thomas P. Graves of Jackowski & Graves, Clive, guardian ad litem for
minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
Judy is the mother of Ronald, Vernon, Christopher, and Nathaniel (the
children), who were, at the close of the record in a termination of parental rights
hearing, fifteen, thirteen, ten, and six years of age respectively. Ronald [Sr.] is
the father of Ronald and Vernon, Christopher’s father is unknown. John is the
father of Nathaniel.
Judy appeals from an April 2006 juvenile court order
terminating her parental rights to the children. The order also terminated the
parental rights of Ronald [Sr.], any unknown putative father of Christopher, and
John. Ronald [Sr.] also appealed, but his appeal has been dismissed for failure
to file a petition on appeal. Neither Christopher’s unknown putative father nor
John has appealed. We affirm.
We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we
are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court’s findings of
fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. The
primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of
the child. To support the termination of parental rights, the State
must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section
232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).
Judy raises two issues on appeal. We address them in reverse order.
Judy claims termination of her parental rights was improper because of
the closeness of the parent-child relationship, citing Iowa Code section
232.116(3)(c) (2005). However, no such issue was presented to or passed upon
by the juvenile court, and Judy did not raise the issue by a post-ruling motion in
the juvenile court. We conclude error has not been preserved on this issue and
do not further address it. See In re C.D., 508 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa Ct. App.
1993) (holding a matter not raised in the trial court cannot be asserted for the first
3
time on appeal); see also In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Iowa 1994)
(holding a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) is essential
to preservation of error when a trial court does not resolve an issue).
Judy also claims termination of her parental rights is not in the children’s
best interest. Even if statutory requirements for termination are met, the decision
to terminate must still be in the best interest of a child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d
398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
Judy has a substantial history of abuse and neglect of the children, as well
as of older siblings of the children. The children were the subject of a past child
in need of assistance (CINA) proceeding that was closed in March 2002.
The children were removed from Judy’s physical custody in October 2002
when she was involuntarily committed to a hospital for serious mental health
problems.
They were adjudicated CINA in December 2002.
The children
thereafter remained in the legal custody of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) and foster care placement until returned to Judy’s physical
custody in April 2004. In September 2004 the children were again removed from
Judy’s physical custody and placed in foster care after Judy had voluntarily
returned them to the foster parents with whom they had earlier been placed.
Judy received services in the CINA proceeding that ended in March 2002.
She has received lengthy and extensive services during the three and one-half
years of the current CINA and termination cases.
Judy has been unable or
unwilling to utilize and benefit from those services. She is unwilling to hold the
children accountable for their actions, discipline them when needed or restrain
4
their sometimes out-of-control behavior. Judy is unable or unwilling to recognize
that there is anything wrong with her parenting and its serious deficiencies.
Judy has had a lengthy period of time to make changes and become able
to effectively parent the children. She has not done so. The children have been
out of her physical custody since October 2002, with the exception of the fivemonth period of April 2004 to September 2004. They are all thriving in their
current, pre-adoptive foster homes. The family’s in-home worker, DHS staff, and
the children’s guardian ad litem all recommend termination of Judy’s parental
rights.
The children have suffered through a somewhat tumultuous three and
one-half year journey of removal, return, and another removal. They cannot be
returned to Judy’s care without being subject to the danger of adjudicatory harm,
because of Judy’s inability or unwillingness to make necessary changes in her
passive and ineffective parenting. Termination of parental rights is necessary to
give the children the opportunity for the stability, security, and permanency they
now desperately need and deserve. We fully agree with the juvenile court that
termination of Judy’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest.
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.
