IN THE INTEREST OF D.R., T.R., and T.R., Minor Children, A.J.T., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-116 / 06-1931
Filed March 14, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF D.R., T.R., and T.R.,
Minor Children,
A.J.T., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Mary L.
Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Andrew J. Smith, Storm Lake, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Philip E. Havens, County Attorney, and Meghann Whitmer,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Carol Hallman of Hudson Law Firm, Pocahontas, for father.
John Murray, Storm Lake, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence and that termination is not in the children’s best interest.
We review these claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) (2005). In order to terminate under this section, the State
must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the
child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for
the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time
the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as
provided in section 232.102.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f). There is no dispute the first three elements have
been proven. The only question is whether the children can be returned to the
mother’s care.
We conclude the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the children cannot be returned to the mother’s care. Although the mother made
some improvements during the pendency of this case, the improvements were
not so significant as to enable her to parent her children safely. The mother
struggled at visitations to provide her children with one-on-one attention. The
type of discipline the mother would provide was unknown as she never
progressed beyond two-hour supervised visitations. Nor did the short visits allow
her ability to provide the children with proper hygiene and nutrition to be
3
assessed. The mother was not able to progress beyond these limited visitations
due to her transportation difficulties, her work schedule, and her relationship with
a married man.
The youngest daughter has accused her maternal grandfather of sexual
abuse. The mother did not give credence to these claims despite being told
repeatedly of the importance of supporting her daughter.
The daughter has
expressed fear of continued abuse if she was placed in her mother’s care. The
risk to the children is also illustrated by the mother’s failure to keep the children
away from her brother, a registered sex offender.
We also conclude termination is in the best interest of the children. The
children were adjudicated in need of assistance in August 2003. Although the
mother was given additional time to reunify with the children, she chose her
relationship with her boyfriend at the expense of a relationship with her children.
As the district court found:
A long time has passed for these children. They have
remained in foster care. They have continued to grow and make
improvements in their lives while awaiting their parents to do the
same. These parents have been given additional time during which
to place themselves in the position to have the children returned to
their care, and they have not taken full advantage of that
opportunity. Permanency has been a long time coming for these
children and it is time they be allowed to experience it.
We agree.
Because the State proved the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence and termination is in the children’s best interest, we affirm.
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.
