IN THE INTEREST OF Z.L. and Z.P., Minor Children, S.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-352 / 07-0594
Filed June 13, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.L. and Z.P.,
Minor Children,
S.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Erica Parkey, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Jolie Juckette, Des Moines, for father of Z.L.
Stephie Tran, Des Moines, for father of Z.P.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon Anderson,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Karl Wolle, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
Staci appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights
to two of her children. We affirm.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Staci is the mother of Zariah, born in July 2002; Zohntay, born in
November 2003; and Donald Jr., born in October 2005. 1 Michael is the father of
Zariah, and Donald Sr. is the putative father of Zohntay and Donald Jr.
The children were removed from Staci’s care on November 3, 2005,
because Donald Jr. tested positive for marijuana and cocaine at birth. Michael
and Donald Sr. were both incarcerated at the time of removal.
Zariah and
Zohntay were initially placed in foster care. They were moved to the home of a
relative on November 23, 2005; however, they were returned to foster care a few
weeks later when the relative was unwilling to care for the children any longer.
The court placed the children in another foster home on January 27, 2006. They
have remained in this home ever since.
Zariah and Zohntay were adjudicated children in need of assistance
(CINA) on December 20, 2005.
The court ordered Staci to submit to drug
testing, but an Iowa Department of Human Services (Department) report noted
she was not consistent in providing urinalyses (UAs) to the Department. Staci
tested positive for cocaine five times and positive for marijuana six times while
this case was pending. She failed to show up for UAs from January 25, 2006, to
May 19, 2006. She provided a negative UA on May 23, 2006, but then did not
1
Staci’s parental rights to Donald Jr. were terminated in a separate proceeding. The
mother’s parental rights to Donald Jr. are not at issue in this appeal.
3
provide a UA again until June 27, 2006. Staci tested positive for cocaine on
October 2, 2006. She has not provided a UA since that time. Staci has also
failed to comply with drug treatment recommendations or participate in individual
therapy.
The State filed a petition to terminate Staci’s, Michael’s, and Donald Sr.’s
parental rights on October 6, 2006. None of the parents attended the termination
hearing, which was held on March 14, 2007. At the termination hearing, Zariah’s
therapist testified Staci has not visited the children since October 2006. The
therapist also testified Staci left the state in October because she was
experiencing “some difficulty” with her “peers.”
Staci’s parental rights be terminated.
The therapist recommended
In an order filed March 22, 2007, the
juvenile court terminated Staci’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(b) (2005) (abandonment), 232.116(1)(d) (child CINA for physical or
sexual abuse or neglect, circumstances continue despite receipt of services),
232.116(1)(e) (child CINA, child removed for six months, parent has not
maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child), 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), 232.116(1)(g) (child CINA, parent’s rights to
another child were terminated, parent does not respond to services),
232.116(1)(h) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six
of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home), and 232.116(1)(l)
(child CINA, parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned
4
within a reasonable time).
The juvenile court also terminated the fathers’
parental rights. Only Staci has 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.
Discussion
In this appeal, Staci contends the State failed to prove the grounds for
termination pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e), (f), (g), (h), and (l).
She also maintains termination is not in the children’s best interests because
they should have been placed in the care of a relative. Upon our review of the
record, we find no merit in the mother’s arguments.
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). Staci failed to preserve error on her claim
that the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination because she
did not contend the State failed to prove the grounds for termination under Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(b) and (d). Even if Staci had preserved error, we find
clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of Staci’s parental rights
under section 232.116(1)(b).
5
Staci tested positive for cocaine on October 2, 2006.
She has not
provided a drug screen or visited with her children since that date. Although she
was personally served with notice, she did not show up for the termination
hearing.
Abandonment constitutes a giving up of parental rights and
responsibilities accompanied by an intent to forgo them. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d
291, 293 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). We conclude the record supports the juvenile
court’s conclusion that Staci has abandoned her children.
Staci also contends termination is not in the children’s best interests
because they should have been placed in the care of a relative. Even when the
statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to terminate parental
rights must reflect the children’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400
(Iowa 1994). When we consider the children’s best interests, we look to their
long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172
(Iowa 1997).
The juvenile court denied the parents’ motion for a home study of a
paternal grandmother in California. Among other things, the court concluded it
was not in the best interests of the children to delay termination proceedings for
six months in order to conduct a home study of a relative who had no contact
with the children for more than one year. We agree. Zariah and Zohntay have
spent much of their lives in foster care, and they have bonded with their foster
mother, who is willing to adopt the children. These children deserve stability and
permanency, which Staci cannot provide. In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1993). Placement of a child with a relative under a permanency order is
6
not a legally preferable alternative to termination of parental rights. In re L.M.F.,
490 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). We conclude termination of Staci's
parental rights is in the children's best interests.
IV.
Conclusion
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Staci’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.
