IN THE INTEREST OF L.S., Minor Child, L.R.S., Father, Appellant, S.J.F., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-304 / 07-0584
Filed May 23, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF L.S.,
Minor Child,
L.R.S., Father,
Appellant,
S.J.F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father and mother appeal from the order terminating their parental
rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Allen Anderson of Spayde, White & Anderson, Oskaloosa, for appellant
father.
John Silko, Bloomfield, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Seth Harrington,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Cynthia Hucks, Ottumwa, for custodians.
Mary Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for maternal grandmother.
Ryan Mitchell, Ottumwa, for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
A mother and father appeal separately from the juvenile court order
terminating their parental rights to their daughter. We affirm on both appeals.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Stacy is the mother and Larry is the father of Lynsey, born in January
2000. 1 Lynsey came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services
(Department) in July 2005 because she had been exposed to drugs and tested
positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. The child was removed from her
parents’ home and placed in voluntary foster care on July 25, 2005.
In
September 2005 Lynsey was placed with her paternal grandmother and stepgrandfather.
The court adjudicated Lynsey as a child in need of assistance (CINA) on
September 26, 2005. 2
Following adjudication, the parents did not take
advantage of the services they were offered. On October 7, 2005, both parents
displayed signs of drug abuse during a visit with their daughter. An in-home
provider reported the mother and father were “glassy-eyed, inattenti[ve] to what
was going on in the room, jittery, [and] unable to concentrate on anything.”
Neither parent completed recommended substance abuse treatment. In May
2006 the court received a report indicating that the parents’ home had no utilities
and had been posted as uninhabitable by the city where they were living. The
parents were asked to submit to drug testing in July 2006. Stacy consented to
1
2
Stacy and Larry have never been married.
Lynsey has two half-siblings, Malea and Dakota, who have also been adjudicated
CINA. Stacy’s parental rights to Malea and Dakota are not at issue in this appeal.
3
testing, and her test result was positive for methamphetamine. Larry refused to
submit to drug testing.
The State filed a petition to terminate Stacy’s and Larry’s parental rights
on August 1, 2006. The termination hearing was scheduled for October 13,
2006, but it was continued until November 27 after the father requested the
appointment of counsel.
When the termination hearing was held, Stacy and
Larry’s home was still without utilities, and their residence had been condemned.
Neither parent had seen Lynsey since October 2005.
In an order filed March 23, 2007, the juvenile court terminated Stacy’s and
Larry’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) (2005)
(child CINA, child removed for six months, and parent has not maintained
significant and meaningful contact with the child) and 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). Both parents 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 child’s best interests in termination proceedings. In
re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
III.
Mother’s Appeal—Statutory Grounds
Stacy contends the statutory grounds for termination are not supported by
clear and convincing evidence. Upon our review of the record, we find no merit
in this argument.
4
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we only need to find grounds to terminate under one of the
sections cited by the court in order to affirm the court’s ruling. In re S.R., 600
N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
In this case, we choose to focus our
attention on section 232.116(1)(f) as the basis for termination.
Stacy contends she has complied with court-ordered services to the extent
possible “given the constraints of her illnesses and personal inability to handle
her substance abuse problems.”
She also claims Lynsey could be safely
returned to her custody within the “reasonably foreseeable future.” We disagree.
Stacy has not had visitation with Lynsey for more than a year because she has
failed to address her substance abuse problems and has failed to comply with
court-ordered services.
Furthermore, at the time of the termination hearing,
Stacy was living in a home that had been condemned.
The record clearly
demonstrates Lynsey could not be returned to her mother’s care now or in the
foreseeable future. We conclude clear and convincing evidence supports the
termination of Stacy’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f).
IV.
Father’s Appeal—Reasonable Efforts
Larry contends reasonable efforts were not made to reunite him with the
child. Upon our review of the record, we find no merit in the father’s argument.
A parent has an obligation to demand additional services prior to the
termination hearing. S.R., 600 N.W.2d at 65. The record reveals Larry did not
demand additional services prior to the termination hearing, and we conclude he
failed to preserve error on this issue. Moreover, the father was offered family
centered services, parenting skill sessions, supervised visitation, substance
5
abuse evaluations, and substance abuse treatment. The juvenile court found
Larry failed to complete treatment, failed to participate in services offered by the
Department, and refused to submit to drug testing.
The record reveals the
Department offered the father numerous services and made reasonable efforts to
reunite him with his daughter, but he failed to take advantage of most of the
services offered. We reject this assignment of error.
V.
Best Interests Arguments
Both parents maintain termination is not in Lynsey’s best interests. 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). Generally, once the grounds for termination of parental
rights have been met, termination is in the best interests of the child even if the
child is in relative placement. See In re D.E.D., 476 N.W.2d 737, 738 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1991).
Lynsey has been in an out-of-home placement since October 2005. Her
parents have only sporadically participated in services since the child was
adjudicated CINA. There is no credible evidence in the record that suggests
additional time would allow Lynsey to be returned to her parental home. Lynsey
deserves stability and permanency, which her parents cannot provide.
In re
C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). This child should not be made
to wait any longer for Stacy and Larry to become responsible parents. J.L.W.,
6
570 N.W.2d at 781. We conclude termination of Stacy’s and Larry’s parental
rights is in the child’s best interests.
VI.
Conclusion
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Stacy’s and Larry’s
parental rights.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
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.
