IN THE INTEREST OF B.K., A.K., and A.D., Minor Children, D.K., Grandmother, Appellant, J.K., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-1048 / 06-1755
Filed January 18, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF B.K., A.K., and A.D.,
Minor Children,
D.K., Grandmother,
Appellant,
J.K., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L.
Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her three
children, and the children’s grandmother appeals from the juvenile court’s
decision to deny her request to assume guardianship and custody of the children.
AFFIRMED.
Sheila O’Laughlin of Snow, Knock, Sevcik & Hinze, Cedar Falls, and
Clovis Bowles, Waterloo, for appellant grandmother.
James Wilson, Dysart, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven Halbach,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Michael Bandy, Waterloo, for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
Jennifer appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her three
children.
Diane, Jennifer’s mother, also appeals from the juvenile court’s
decision to deny her request to assume guardianship and custody of the children.
Upon our de novo review, we affirm.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Jennifer is the mother of Brienna, born in June 1998; Ashlyne, born in
February 2001; and Anthony, born in November 2003. Shane is the father of
Brienna, Dontaye is the father of Ashlyne, and Eugene is the father of Anthony. 1
Jennifer gave birth to another child shortly before her parental rights were
terminated regarding Brienna, Ashlyne, and Anthony. The infant, Shawn, tested
positive for marijuana. 2
Brienna, Ashlyne, and Anthony were removed from the mother’s home in
May 2005 because of Jennifer’s drug abuse and her failure to supervise the
children. After the children were removed from their mother’s care, the Iowa
Department of Human Services (the Department) placed them with their maternal
grandmother, Diane.
The grandmother agreed to a safety contract, which
provided that she would prevent any contact between her grandchildren and her
son, a sex offender.
The juvenile court adjudicated Brienna, Ashlyne, and Anthony as children
in need of assistance (CINA) on September 13, 2005.
1
The children were
None of the children’s fathers have appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating
their parental rights. Their parental rights are not at issue in this appeal.
2
Jennifer’s parental rights to Shawn are not at issue in this appeal.
3
removed from Diane’s care following the adjudication hearing after she allowed
contact between the children and her son. Brienna was placed with a maternal
aunt; however, when her aunt was unable to care for her, the child was returned
to her grandmother’s home on an emergency basis.
In December 2005 the
juvenile court ordered Brienna placed in foster care.
The record reveals Jennifer did not consistently participate in services
after the children were removed from her care. She was also without a suitable
home much of the time. Because of the mother’s lack of progress, the State filed
a petition to terminate Jennifer and the fathers’ parental rights.
A termination hearing was held in August 2006. A provider with Families
First testified she supervised visits between Jennifer and the children. When the
provider visited Jennifer’s apartment, it looked like nobody was staying there
because there were no beds or bedding. Another employee of Families First
who provides parenting counseling and therapy testified Jennifer was supposed
to meet with her once a week. Jennifer failed to attend fifteen of the thirty-seven
counseling sessions that were scheduled, and the counselor testified Jennifer felt
she did not need family-centered services. Jennifer met with her counselor one
time in the month and a half prior to the termination hearing. The court heard
evidence Jennifer had regressed “back to square one” at the time of the
termination hearing. Jennifer also refused to submit to drug testing at times.
When Brienna was in first grade, she gave a child protection worker a detailed
description of how her mother rolled and smoked marijuana cigarettes. In an
order filed October 18, 2006, the juvenile court terminated Jennifer’s parental
4
rights and denied Diane’s request for guardianship and custody of the children.
Jennifer and Diane have appealed.
II.
Scope and Standards of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d
147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be supported by clear
and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). We are
primarily concerned with the best interests of the children in termination
proceedings. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
III.
Discussion
On appeal, Jennifer contends the juvenile court “erred in finding that
placement of the children in the home of the mother, J.K., either immediately or
within an additional short period of time, would not be in the best interests of the
child[ren].”
The juvenile court terminated Jennifer’s parental rights to Brienna and
Ashlyne pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) (child CINA, child
removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful
contact with the child), 232.116(1) (f) (child four or older, child CINA, removed
from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned
home), and 232.116(1)(l) (child CINA, parent has substance abuse problem,
child cannot be returned within a reasonable time) (2005). The court terminated
the mother’s parental rights to Anthony pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(e), (h)
(child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve
months, and child cannot be returned home), and (l).
5
Jennifer does not seriously contend the State failed to prove the statutory
grounds for termination, and we find all the grounds for termination relied on by
the State are supported by clear and convincing evidence. We next consider
Jennifer’s contention that termination is not in the best interests of the children.
The decision to terminate parental rights must reflect the children’s best
interests even when the statutory grounds for termination are met. In re M.S.,
519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
When we consider the children’s best
interests, we look to their long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re
C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). We agree with the juvenile court’s
conclusion that Jennifer has not adequately dealt with her substance abuse
problem. During the termination hearing, Jennifer admitted she used marijuana
while she was pregnant with Shawn. As a result, Shawn tested positive for
marijuana when he was born. Jennifer has failed to provide drug screens, and
she has not consistently participated in services. Jennifer was without a suitable
home for the children throughout much of the proceedings in juvenile court.
Serious concerns still exist regarding Jennifer’s continued sobriety and ability to
provide adequate care for the children.
Jennifer’s older children already have significant behavioral issues.
Brienna currently resides in a residential treatment program due to her
aggressive and assaultive behaviors. Ashlyne has begun to exhibit aggressive
behavior as well. Clearly, Jennifer’s children are in need of permanency, and
they should not have to wait any longer for their mother to become a responsible
parent. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990). We agree with the juvenile
6
court’s finding that termination of Jennifer’s parental rights is in the children’s
best interests.
The maternal grandmother seeks reversal of the juvenile court’s decision
“denying her request for placement, custody and/or guardianship, and visitation”
with the children. In her brief on appeal, she takes issue with several of the
factual findings made by the juvenile court in its termination order. She also
expresses displeasure with other orders entered by the court prior to the
termination hearing.
Upon careful review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court’s
conclusion that Diane is not a suitable option for permanent placement of the
children. The record reveals Diane allowed the children to have contact with her
son, a known sex offender, on several occasions. The juvenile court found Diane
would not be able to protect the children from their mother if the children were
placed in their grandmother’s care.
The court further found Diane did not
appreciate how Jennifer’s behaviors placed the children at risk. We also note the
children’s attorney recommended against placing the children with their maternal
grandmother. We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to deny Diane’s request to
assume guardianship and custody of the children. 3
Diane has filed motion to amend her petition on appeal to include an
additional claim. We deny her application.
3
Diane argues she should have been allowed additional visitation with the children. In
an order entered several months before the termination hearing was held, the court
determined any visitation between the grandmother and the children could occur during
supervised visitation with the mother. This order was not appealed, and we conclude
the issue of visitation is now moot and cannot be remedied.
7
IV.
Conclusion
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Jennifer’s parental
rights. We also affirm the court’s decision to deny Diane’s request to assume
guardianship and custody of the children.
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.
