IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.H. JR., D.R.T.-M. and A.J.N.H., Minor Children, J.A., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-251 / 07-0342
Filed April 25, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.H. JR., D.R.T.-M. and A.J.N.H.,
Minor Children,
J.A., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian L.
Michaelson, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Molly Vakulskas Joly, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Dewey P. Sloan,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Matthew R. Metzgar of Rhinehart Law, P.C., Sioux City, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, 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, termination is not in the children’s best interest, and the
State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children. 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
sections 232.116(1)(d) and (e) (2005). Parental rights to J.M.H. Jr. and A.J.N.H.
were also terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).
We need only find
termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274,
276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
Termination is appropriate under section
232.116(1)(d) where:
(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in
need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or
sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions
of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a
child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of
assistance after such a finding.
(2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the
parents were offered or received services to correct the
circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance
continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
The mother does not dispute the first element has been proven. Instead, she
contends there is not clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances that
led to the adjudication of her children as in need of assistance continue to exist.
We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence warranting
termination of the mother’s parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(d).
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance because they were found to
have been neglected and imminently likely to suffer further harm from physical
3
abuse or neglect as a result of the mother’s failure to supervise the children and
exposing them to domestic violence. These circumstances continue to exist.
The mother did not participate in services that would allow her to address her
involvement in abusive relationships and concerns about the mother’s
relationships continue to exist.
The mother also did not adequately address
concerns about her parenting abilities. At the time of the termination hearing, the
mother did not have housing or steady employment. Termination is appropriate.
Termination is also in the children’s best interest.
The juvenile court
found:
[The mother] has been an ever present source of harm to
these children. She has both neglected the children and herself by
denying problems exist and avoiding changes to address those
problems. Her resistence to change caused the children to be
removed from her custody. After nearly 1 ½ years of services, she
still has not furthered her education, has yet to show she can
sustain a vocation, and has persisted in a dysfunctional/chaotic
lifestyle. She remains ill equipped to provide for these children and
is still a source of constant harm to them.
During the period of services, [the mother’s] contact with the
children became restricted. She failed to complete responsibilities
of case permanency plans that would have helped her provide
emotionally and financially for these children. She did not take
advantage of services that could have helped her complete
responsibilities of case plans and assume effective parenting. Her
contact since modification of the children’s custody a year ago has
been neither significant nor meaningful.
The children have been out-of-home for the last year. [The
mother] still sees no problem that warranted court intervention.
Due to her blindness/denial, these children would be at imminent
risk to be harmed due to her neglect. There is no indication that
there children could be returned to her custody and protected from
such harm any time in the foreseeable future.
We adopt these findings as our own. The future can be gleaned by the mother’s
past performance. See In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000). Because
4
the mother is unable to see the deficiencies in her parenting, termination is
appropriate.
Finally, the mother contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunite her with her children. The mother was provided with a myriad of services,
but was selective about her cooperation with these services.
Although the
mother requested additional services on October 27, 2006, some of these
services were being provided or the mother wanted to control who provided
these services.
The reasonable efforts requirement is not a strict substantive requirement
for termination. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). Instead, the
services and the scope of the efforts provided by the Department of Human
Services (DHS) to reunify parent and child after removal impacts the State’s
burden of proving the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent. Id.
The mother did not want the DHS involved with her children and did not believe
she needed any services.
We conclude the State met its burden in proving the children cannot be
returned to the mother’s care. The DHS offered reasonable services to reunite
the mother and her children.
services.
The mother chose not to participate in those
We do not believe offering any additional services would have
remedied the problems in this case.
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.
