IN THE INTEREST OF T.L.J., Minor Child, L.R.J., Mother, Appellant, J.K., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-301 / 07-0396
Filed May 9, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF T.L.J.,
Minor Child,
L.R.J., Mother,
Appellant,
J.K., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the order terminating their parental
rights. AFFIRMED.
Timothy J. Tupper, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Neill A. Kroeger, Davenport, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Derek G. Jones, Davenport, for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
J.K. (father) and L.J. (mother) appeal from the juvenile court’s order
terminating their parental rights concerning their twenty-one-month-old son, T.J.
Neither challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting any of the statutory
grounds for termination of parental rights relied on by the juvenile court. Both
claim “the Trial Court erred in terminating parental rights where an appropriate
relative placement was available and the Department of Human Services failed
to comply with its own rules and the Permanency Order requiring family
placement to be considered.”
Our review of L.J.’s and J.K.’s claims is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d
489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). The primary
concern in the termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re
Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981). We give weight to the fact findings
of the juvenile court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but
we are not bound by those findings. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa
1990).
We initially decline to consider the parents’ arguments concerning the
department’s failure to comply with its administrative rules. Neither cites any
authority requiring reversal of a termination order on that basis. Iowa R. App. P.
6.14(1)(c).
Placement with relatives is not presumptively preferred over termination of
parental rights. In re L.M.F., 490 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). “Before
3
the court may enter a permanency order, one condition which must be shown is
termination of the parent-child relationship would not be in the best interest of the
child.” Id. at 67-68.
Contrary to the parents’ claims, termination of parental rights in this case,
as opposed to placement with relatives, is in T.J.’s best interests.
The trial
court’s stated reasons for rejecting the parents’ proposed placement include the
following:
The permanency goal of the Department is adoption by the
child’s current foster parents. The child is very strongly bonded
with these foster parents. The contested issue in this case centers
around the desire of both parents that the child should be placed
and eventually adopted by a family member, [R.E.]. She is a
paternal aunt. She has been rejected as a foster parent because of
concerns listed in the notice which is Exhibit 19. Although she
appears to be a pleasant, capable, and stable person, the Court
defers to the reasons for rejection by the Department of Human
Services considered in total. They are reasons for concern. The
Court also notes that the proposed caretaker is married to a man
with whom she has been estranged over the past seven years.
They are not divorced and seem to have no intention of doing so.
He has evidenced no interest in adoption of [T.J.] and has not
participated in the services necessary to be licensed as a foster
parent to prepare him for adoption.
Testimony describes
Departmental policy against placement of the child in such a
relationship. The Court understands good reason for the policy.
Based on the bonding of the child with his current foster parents
and their commitment to him as adoptive parents, the Court
concludes that the child’s best interests are served by continued
placement in their home. The Court is satisfied that termination of
parental rights for the purposes of adoption planned by the
Department is in the best interests of the child. The Court would
not find that placement of the child with [R.E.] is in the child’s best
interest.
It is sufficient to note that the juvenile court’s findings are abundantly supported
by the record, and we adopt them as our own.
Like the juvenile court, we
4
conclude termination of parental rights is in T.J.’s best interests. The juvenile
court’s order terminating J.K.’s and L.J.’s parental rights is affirmed.
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.
