IN THE INTEREST OF D.D., Minor Child, C.D., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-278 / 07-0401
Filed May 9, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF D.D.,
Minor Child,
C.D., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, William S.
Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Patricia Lipski, Fairfield, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Tim W. Dille, County Attorney, and Patrick McAvan, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Stephan Small, Fairfield, for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
Cindy appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights
to her son. We affirm.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Cindy is the mother and James Jr. 1 is the father of Douglas, born in July
2005. Douglas was born prematurely and weighed only one pound four ounces
at birth. He has faced a variety of serious medical issues as a result of his
premature birth. 2 Douglas was not discharged from the hospital until October 2.
When he was discharged, Cindy was instructed to return him to the hospital for
appointments with his neonatologist, pediatric surgeons, and ophthalmologists.
Cindy failed to return Douglas to the hospital for his scheduled doctors’
appointments. Douglas developed flat spots on his head due to being left in one
position for too long. His mother often left him in a crib with a bottle propped in
his mouth.
In addition, Douglas did not gain adequate weight after he was
discharged from the hospital to his mother’s care. Cindy returned to the hospital
with the child only after the Iowa Department of Human Services (Department)
intervened. Although the mother received numerous services, her caseworkers
became increasingly concerned Cindy was unable to provide adequate care for
Douglas. An in-home nurse expressed concerns about Cindy’s abruptness with
her infant son, and another in-home provider expressed concerns that Cindy
lacked basic knowledge about Douglas’s heart monitor and his medical issues.
1
James Jr.’s whereabouts were unknown at the time of the termination hearing. He has
not appealed from the termination of his parental rights.
2
Douglas had respiratory distress syndrome and required ventilation at birth; he also
developed chronic lung disease that still requires increased oxygen administration. In
addition, he suffered from an inguinal hernia, apnea, and anemia caused by prematurity.
3
Douglas was removed from Cindy’s care on December 19, 2005. Within
thirty days after the child was placed in foster care, he made dramatic strides in
his health and development.
Douglas was adjudicated a child in need of
assistance (CINA) on February 22, 2006. Douglas has not returned to Cindy’s
custody since he was removed from the home.
The State filed a petition to terminate Cindy’s parental rights on July 5,
2006, and an amended petition was filed on August 2, 2006. The juvenile court
held a contested termination hearing on October 11, 2006. A family centered
service provider with the Mid-Iowa Family Therapy Clinic testified she had
concerns for Douglas’s safety when he was in his mother’s care. The provider
stated Cindy had failed to participate in Douglas’s last five medical appointments
prior to the termination hearing. The provider also testified Cindy was unable to
master basic parenting skills. At one point, Cindy even told the provider “I don’t
think I can take care of [Douglas].” According to the provider, Cindy would not be
able to demonstrate the parenting skills necessary to have Douglas returned to
her care even if she were given an additional six months.
The juvenile court terminated Cindy’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2005) (child is three or younger, child CINA,
removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned
home) in an order filed February 21, 2007. Cindy has 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
4
primarily concerned with the child’s best interests in termination proceedings. In
re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
III.
Discussion
In this appeal, Cindy contends reasonable efforts were not made to
reunite her with Douglas because she did not receive a “psychiatric or
psychological evaluation.” She also contends the court abused its discretion in
not granting additional time for reunification, and she maintains termination is not
in Douglas’s best interests. Upon our review of the record, we find no merit in
any of the mother’s arguments.
Cindy requested a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation at the
termination hearing. A parent has an obligation to demand additional services
prior to the termination hearing. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App.
1999). We conclude Cindy failed to preserve error on this issue. Moreover, the
record reveals Cindy was diagnosed with depression and offered services to
address that issue.
Cindy initially attended some of her mental health
appointments; however, she stopped going to her appointments three to four
months prior to the termination hearing. Even before that time, she was not
attending appointments on a regular basis. Furthermore, the Department asked
Cindy to participate in a psychological evaluation, but according to a Department
social worker, Cindy “has not wanted to do a psychological evaluation.” The
record suggests Cindy indicated her willingness to participate in a psychological
evaluation only at the time of the termination hearing. We reject this assignment
of error.
5
Even when the statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to
terminate parental rights must reflect the child’s best interests. In re M.S., 519
N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). When we consider the child’s best interests, we
look to the child’s long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558
N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). Douglas has many special needs because of his
premature birth, but he has thrived in foster care. He has gained weight, his
oxygen levels have improved, and after only one week in foster care, the
Department noticed an extreme improvement in the shape of his head.
Cindy has been provided with numerous services since October 2, 2005;
however, she has made only minimal progress and has been unable to grasp the
skills necessary to care for her son. There is no credible evidence in the record
that suggests additional time would allow Douglas to be returned to his mother’s
care. When a parent is incapable of changing to allow the child to return home,
termination is necessary. In re T.T., 541 N.W.2d 552, 557 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cindy’s
request for a six-month continuance.
Douglas has spent nearly his entire life in foster care. Despite his special
needs, he is considered adoptable. Douglas deserves stability and permanency,
which his mother cannot provide. In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1993). We conclude termination of Cindy’s parental rights is in the child’s
best interests.
IV.
Conclusion
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Cindy’s parental rights.
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.
