IN THE INTEREST OF K.D.J. Jr. and J.M.L.W., Minor Children, M.L.M.-J., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-349 / 07-0433
Filed June 13, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF K.D.J. Jr. and J.M.L.W.,
Minor Children,
M.L.M.-J., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane
Sokolovske, Judge.
M.M.-J. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights concerning her two children. AFFIRMED.
Stephanie Forker Parry of Forker & Parry, Sioux City, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and David Dawson,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Michelle Dreibelbis of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for minor
children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
M.M.-J. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights concerning her two children, K.J. Jr. (age one) and J.W. (age three). The
juvenile court terminated M.M.-J.’s parental rights to K.J. Jr. and J.W. pursuant to
Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) (abandonment), (d) (child CINA for physical or
sexual abuse (or neglect), circumstances continue despite receipt of services),
(e) (child CINA, child removed for six months, parent has not maintained
significant and meaningful contact with the child), (g) (child CINA, parent’s rights
to another child were terminated, parent does not respond to services), (h) (child
is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months,
and child cannot be returned home), (i) (child meets definition of CINA, child was
in imminent danger, services would not correct conditions), and (l) (child CINA,
parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned within a
reasonable time).
On appeal, M.M.-J. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the statutory grounds relied on by the juvenile court to terminate her parental
rights.
She also contends termination of her parental rights is not in the
children’s best interests.
We review M.M.-J.’s claims 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 termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re
R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 275 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
When the trial court
3
terminates on more than one statutory ground, we need only find termination is
proper on one ground. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
Abandonment.
“Abandonment of a child” means the relinquishment or
surrender, without reference to any particular person, of the
parental rights, duties, or privileges inherent in the parent-child
relationship. Proof of abandonment must include both the intention
to abandon and the acts by which the intention is evidenced. The
term does not require that the relinquishment or surrender be over
any particular period of time.
Iowa Code § 232.2(1) (2005).
Two elements are necessary to establish abandonment: (1) the giving up
of parental rights and responsibilities as demonstrated by the party’s conduct and
(2) an accompanying state of mind that shows intent to forego these rights and
responsibilities. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (citing In
re D.M., 516 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 1994)). “Parental responsibilities include
more than subjectively maintaining an interest in a child. The concept requires
affirmative parenting to the extent it is practical and feasible in the
circumstances.” Id.
“Significant and meaningful contact” includes, but is not limited to,
the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties
encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty,
in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the
child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in
the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain
communication with the child, and requires that the parents
establish and maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e)(3).
The record indicates K.J. Jr. and J.W. were removed from parental
custody and adjudicated children in need of assistance because of M.M.−J.’s
4
substance abuse and the resulting risk of harm to her children. Although M.M.-J.
was offered visitation with her children, she has not visited the children or
inquired about their welfare since they were removed in April 2006. The record
also indicates M.M.-J. has been incarcerated for a substantial period of time
while this case was pending in juvenile court. She, however, cannot use her
incarceration as an excuse for her failure to establish and maintain a relationship
with her children. In re J.L.W., 523 N.W.2d 622, 624 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
Based on this evidence, the juvenile court found:
These children have been abandoned by their respective
parents as evidenced by the parents’ lack of motivation/interest in
assuming a parental role by failing to involve themselves in
services and visitations, failing to provide any emotional or financial
support, and continued involvement in criminal activities, resulting
in ongoing incarcerations.
We agree and adopt the juvenile court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law
as our own. Moreover, we expressly reject M.M.-J.’s claim that her request for
placement in the Woman and Children’s Program so that she could reside with
the children during treatment is conclusive proof she did not intend to abandon
her children.
M.M.-J.’s requested placement falls far short of the affirmative
parenting contemplated by section 232.116(1)(e)(3). In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d at
293. Like the juvenile court, we find clear and convincing evidence supporting
termination of M.M.-J.’s parental rights because she abandoned her children.
Best Interests.
Once we determine grounds for termination have been established by
clear and convincing evidence, we must next determine whether it is in the
children’s best interests to terminate parental rights. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398,
5
400 (Iowa 1994). When determining a child’s best interests, we look to both the
child’s long-range and immediate interests. In re M.N.W., 577 N.W.2d 874, 875
(Iowa Ct. App. 1998). “A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are
now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best interests.” In re J.E.,
723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (internal
citation omitted).
The juvenile court’s dispositive findings of fact on this issue state:
[J.W.] has resided in family foster care since his removal
from parental custody on April 5, 2006. [K.J. Jr.] has resided in
family foster care since his birth. Both boys are doing well and their
needs are being met. They cannot be returned to parental custody
now or at any time in the foreseeable future. Both boys are
adoptable. They have been abandoned by their parents. This
court finds that it would be in the best interests of these two
children to terminate the rights of their biological parents in order to
provide them with a safe, stable, loving, secure environment, free of
drugs, domestic violence and criminal activities.
We agree. Moreover, M.M.-J.’s assertion that with appropriate services “she
could be certain that no future harm would come to either of the children” is
hopelessly
irreconcilable
performance.
with
her
overall
lifestyle
and
past
parenting
We, like the juvenile court, conclude termination of M.M.-J.’s
parental rights is in the children’s best interests.
The juvenile court’s order terminating M.M.-J.’s parental rights concerning
K.J. Jr. and J.W. 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.
