IN THE INTEREST OF C.S., Minor Child, H.C.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-306 / 07-0431
Filed May 23, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF C.S., Minor Child,
H.C.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark Kruse,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Alan N. Waples of Wittkamp & Waples, Burlington, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick C. Jackson, County Attorney, and Pamela K.
Dettmann, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Scott Schroeder, Burlington, for father.
Peter Hansen of Hansen Law Office, Burlington, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. She
contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence. We review her claim 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)(h) (2005). Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination of
parental rights if:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(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 six months of the last twelve months, or
for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has
been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be
returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section
232.102 at the present time.
The mother argues the last element of the section has not been met.
We
disagree.
The child was removed from the mother’s care at birth because of the
child’s physical problems and the parent’s inability to properly care for the child.
The child still requires a feeding tube and the mother has made no progress in
learning how to even feed the child. Over the thirteen-month course of this case,
the child has never been returned to the mother’s care. The mother has not
participated in the services offered her or had any meaningful contact with the
child. The failure to participate in services or maintain contact with the child are
the result of the mother’s drug use, homelessness, mental instability, and her
refusal to take advantage of services and opportunities offered by the State. At
3
the time of termination, the mother was about to be evicted from her housing for
non-payment of rent. There is substantial evidence that the mother is not willing
or able to parent her child. The child clearly cannot be returned to the mother’s
care. Accordingly, 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.
