IN THE INTEREST OF S.B. AND J.B., Minor Children, J.B. AND C.B., Parents, Appellants.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-760 / 06-1257
Filed September 21, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF S.B. AND J.B.,
Minor Children,
J.B. AND C.B., Parents,
Appellants.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark Kruse,
District Associate Judge.
Parents appeal the district court’s order terminating their parental rights for
two of their children. AFFIRMED.
Emily S. Dean of Saunders, Humphrey, Johnson & Dean, L.L.P., Fort
Madison, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Pamela Dettmann, County Attorney, for appellee.
Toby Gordon, of Schulte, Hahn, Swanson, Engler & Gordon, Burlington,
guardian ad litem for the minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Carla and Jim are the parents of Stephanie and Joshua, ages ten and four
at the time of hearing. They appeal the district court’s order terminating their
parental rights to both children, arguing that reasonable reunification services
were not provided and termination was not in the children’s best interests. Upon
our de novo review, In re J.J.S., Jr., 628 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001), we
affirm the termination order.
Carla and Jim have a long history with the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS), beginning in 1995 when a lack of supervision of the children was
reported. 1 Carla is mentally low functioning, limiting her ability to do many tasks
relating to care of the children and herself. She has a history of mental illness,
domestic violence, and criminal activity. Jim also has been diagnosed as low
functioning, with schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, as well as
having a history of domestic violence. The most current founded child abuse
report occurred in July 2003, when then eight-year-old Stephanie was found
wandering by railroad tracks and picked up by a driver from Illinois. Jim had
placed Stephanie, who is developmentally delayed and autistic, in the care of her
nine-year-old brother, Blake, who is also low functioning and was unable to care
for his sister. Stephanie was gone from the home for over one hour before the
police returned her. When a DHS worker came to the home in September 2003,
Jim exhibited such extreme verbal aggression and threats that DHS sought and
was granted an ex parte order to remove the children. Stephanie and Joshua
1
Jim and Carla have three other children that were also removed from their care but are
not the subject of this appeal.
3
were subsequently adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa
Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (children are likely to suffer harm due to
parent’s failure to exercise care in supervising children) on October 2, 2003.
Jim, Carla, and the children received numerous services between the time
of adjudication and the termination hearing on July 5, 2006, including: DHS
supervision, supervised/semi-supervised visitation, child abuse assessments,
medication
management,
individual
mental
health
counseling,
marriage
counseling, psychiatric treatment, vocational rehabilitation, payee services, home
and community-based waiver services, family foster care, and residential
placement. Jim and Carla were inconsistent with attending visitation with the
children, especially with Stephanie whose visits were separate due to her
behavioral issues when visiting with her siblings present. Jim and Carla also
demonstrated recurring problems with budgeting and spending beyond their
means, often resulting in unpaid bills. A persistent cause of Jim and Carla’s
difficulties appears to be their arguments and physical aggression. They have
missed several counseling appointments, either joint marital sessions or
individual mental health sessions, and terminated any counseling altogether as of
June 2006. Jim and Carla have also stated many times that they don’t believe
they can care for Stephanie because of her special needs and behavioral issues.
Needless to say, Jim and Carla’s stability both as individuals and as parents has
been a primary concern of the service providers, DHS, and the court during the
pendency of this case. The State filed a petition to terminate Jim and Carla’s
parental rights to Stephanie and Joshua on May 26, 2006, pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(f) (child is four or older, child CINA, removed from
4
home for twelve of last eighteen months, and cannot be returned home) and
232.116(1)(h) (child is three or younger, 2 child CINA, removed from home for six
of last twelve months, and cannot be returned home). The hearing was held on
July 5, with all parties present and represented by counsel. The district court
ruled on July 20, 2006, that (1) DHS made reasonable efforts to reunite the
family, and no other services were requested by the parents that were not
provided; (2) clear and convincing evidence existed that the children could not be
returned home; and (3) termination was in Stephanie’s and Joshua’s best
interests due to the excellent strides in their development made while in the care
of their foster homes. Jim and Carla appeal.
The first issue asserted on appeal is that Jim and Carla were not provided
services to promote reunification with their children. The district court found, and
we agree, that Jim and Carla were offered and received reasonable services and
did not request additional services.
A parent is not entitled to rely upon an
allegation that DHS failed to provide reasonable services, where (s)he did not
timely request such services. See In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 692 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2000). Therefore, we find the issue of reasonableness of services provided
has not been preserved for our review.
Finally, Jim and Carla argue that termination is not in the children’s best
interests. Even where there is a statutory basis to terminate parental rights, the
termination must still be in the best interest of the children. In re M.S., 519
N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In making that determination we consider both
the children’s long-range and immediate interests. In re M.N.W., 577 N.W.2d
2
At the time the petition was filed, Joshua was three years old.
5
874, 875 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). We use the parents’ past performance to assess
their ability to provide future care, giving substantial weight to case history
records. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993).
With regard to Stephanie, the record reflects that her parents virtually
eliminated their relationship with her by failing to attend visitation regularly and
only attending two visits since April 2006. Jim and Carla questioned their ability
to care for Stephanie on many occasions due to her heightened level of needs.
Both parents demonstrated difficulty throughout the case addressing their own
needs, much less an ability to parent Stephanie. In turn, Stephanie has shown
great progress in the care of her foster parents. She is bonded to her foster
family and has made much progress with her behavioral issues due to the
intensive services, stability, and security found in her foster placement. Joshua
is also extremely bonded with his foster mother and her extended family. His
developmental delays continue to be addressed and he shows positive
improvements.
It appears that both foster families intend to adopt their
respective child, giving both Stephanie and Joshua consistent caregivers able to
tend to their immediate and long-term needs. We conclude that the termination
of Jim and Carla’s parental rights is in the best interests of Stephanie and Joshua
and affirm the district court’s order.
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.
