IN THE INTEREST OF S.I.B., IV, Minor Child, S.B., III, Father, Appellant, S.K., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-350 / 07-0481
Filed May 23, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF S.I.B., IV,
Minor Child,
S.B., III, Father,
Appellant,
S.K., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Kim M. Riley,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her son.
AFFIRMED.
Randal Giannetto, Marshalltown, for appellant father.
Melissa Nine of Kaplan & Frese, L.L.P., Marshalltown, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Bradley Harris, Special Prosecutor for Hardin County, and
Randall J. Tilton, County Attorney, for appellee.
Andrea Miller, Hampton, guardian ad litem for the minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
S.K. is the mother of S.B., who was born in March of 2006. The family
initially had contact with the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) shortly
after S.B.’s birth when it was discovered by a visiting nurse that S.B. was losing
weight, had been receiving inadequate feedings, and was residing in a home with
unhygienic conditions. Three days after his birth S.B. was removed for denial of
critical care. 1 In April, S.B. was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance
(CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(g) (2005).
After the mother failed to attend subsequent dispositional and review
hearings and largely failed to comply with her service plan, the State filed a
petition seeking to terminate her parental rights to S.B. Following a hearing, the
court granted the State’s request and terminated the mother’s parental rights
under section 232.116(1)(e) (child CINA, removed for six months, parent has not
maintained significant and meaningful contact with child). S.K. appeals from this
order. 2
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. 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 record evinces a history of indifference from the mother to her child.
Following the child’s adjudication hearing, the mother was ordered to cooperate
with services pending the dispositional hearing.
1
However, in May 2006, the
S.B. is placed with his two older half-siblings, both of whom have been adopted by the
same foster parents.
2
The putative father’s rights were also terminated, but his rights are not on appeal.
3
mother left the State to follow the child’s putative father and his work with a
carnival, moving from Mississippi to Louisiana. No mailing address was provided
to DHS. The mother did not attend the dispositional hearing held on June 20,
2006.
The thrust of mother’s argument on appeal is that DHS thwarted her ability
to visit with her son. She claims that upon her return to Iowa in late summer or
September 2006, she requested visitation with S.B., but was not given visitation
until November. The State claimed she first contacted DHS in October, but due
to her absence and repeated assertions that she wished to have her rights
terminated, her services had been discontinued. Nonetheless, DHS arranged a
visit for November 9, 2006 and a second visit on November 22, the mother’s
birthday. DHS reports indicate the mother requested no further visits at that time.
A review hearing was held on December 19, 2006. The mother did not
attend.
The mother did not seek any more visits until mid-January 2007;
however, no such visit was held as the mother did not make timely return
telephone calls to DHS to schedule a visitation. In February, the mother did have
a visit with S.B. At that visit it was learned that the mother, who was again
pregnant, planned to leave Iowa to prevent the State from removing that baby as
well.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we concur in the judgment that the
State proved by clear and convincing evidence S.K.’s parental rights should be
terminated under section 232.116(1)(e). S.K. has only superficially attempted to
comply with the provisions of her case plan, and in the many services and
visitations offered, largely due to the lack of her presence in the state. Before
4
she left Iowa in May 2006, she had been amply counseled regarding the impact
that leaving the State would have on her chances to reunify with S.B. In addition,
on more than one occasion she told her service provider as well as her attorney
that she intended to voluntarily give up her parental rights to S.B. Following her
own stated goals, she left the State for an extensive period of time, turning her
back on her child.
From the outset of this case, the mother failed to exhibit an appropriate
level of interest in her child’s life. Although the district court characterized her as
“intelligent and articulate”, S.K. has failed to understand the impact her absence
would have on her child. She has not assumed parental responsibility in any
sense. The district court noted there is little or no reported bond between mother
and child and the mother’s failures were not due to any effort on the part of DHS
to thwart S.K.’s contact with her son. Rather, the mother’s desires to pursue her
own goals, and distancing herself from her child, demonstrated her lack of
significant and meaningful contact with S.B. and are inconsistent with his best
interests. We therefore affirm the termination of S.K.’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.
