IN THE INTEREST OF P.L.J., M.L. and A.L.W., Minor Children, C.E.L., Mother, Appellant, M.W., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-384 / 07-0609
Filed June 13, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF P.L.J., M.L. and A.L.W.,
Minor Children,
C.E.L., Mother,
Appellant,
M.W., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla Fultz, Associate
Juvenile Judge.
A mother of three children, and the father of one of those children appeal
from the order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
David Pargulski, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Scott Bandstra of the Bandstra Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Faye Jenkins,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
J. Michael Mayer, Des Moines, for appellee father.
Jane Rosien, Winterset, guardian ad litem for the minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Charles is the mother of Preanna, who was born in 2000, Montary, who
was born in 2003, and Alize, who was born in 2005. Matthew is the father of
Alize. The family first came to the attention of the juvenile courts in 2004, when
Preanna tested positive for cocaine during a child protective assessment
investigation. This case was closed in October 2005, when the Iowa Department
of Human Services (DHS) felt Charles was able to keep her children safe.
However, in December of 2005, the children were removed from her care after
police executed a search warrant at the home and discovered a large amount of
crack cocaine in a location readily accessible to the children. 1 All three children
tested positive for cocaine following their removal.
Based on this incident, the children were adjudicated to be children in
need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n)
(2005). After a variety of services were offered to Charles and troubling issues
remained concerning her care of the children during visits, the State file a petition
seeking to terminate her parental rights. It also sought termination of Matthew’s
rights and the fathers of the other two children. 2 Following a hearing, the court
granted the State’s request. It terminated Charles’s rights to all three children
under sections 232.116(1)(d), (g), (h) and (i), and to Preanna under section
1
Charles subsequently pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver and child
endangerment based on this incident. She was sentenced to imprisonment, but her
sentence was suspended and she was placed on probation. Matthew pled guilty to
possession with intent to deliver and he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with
an expected release date of June 16, 2010.
2
The fathers of Preanna and Montary do not appeal the termination of their parental
rights.
3
232.116(1)(f). 3 It also terminated Matthew’s rights to Alize under sections (b),
(d), (e), (g), (h), and (i).
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 children. In re
C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa
2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proven by clear
and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App.
1995).
On appeal, Charles alleges (1) the State filed to establish that the
circumstances that led to adjudication continued to exist at the time of the
termination hearing, (2) the court erred in concluding the children could not be
returned to her care, and (3) she should be given additional time to work towards
reunification. Upon our de novo review of the record, we reject each of these
contentions, and specifically find termination of Charles’s parental rights
appropriate under section 232.116(1)(i) (CINA, abuse or neglect posed
significant risk to child, offer and receipt of services would not correct the
conditions that led to the abuse).
On at least two documented occasions, Charles has placed her children in
danger by exposing them to drugs.
3
In October 2005, when Charles had
In its termination order, the juvenile court concludes “the allegations of the petition
have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.” It does not specifically set forth
the Code provisions under which it found termination to be appropriate as to each parent
and for each child.
4
successfully participated in services and DHS believed she had reached
maximum benefits, Charles almost immediately repeated the type of action that
had necessitated DHS involvement in the first place: exposing the children to
crack cocaine. Charles’s personal history demonstrates she lacks the insight to
implement and retain child protection skills taught through the services offered.
See In re L .L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 1990) (noting past performance
may be indicative of quality of future care the parent is capable of providing).
Charles simply does not recognize or appreciate the risk she poses to the
children or the impact on these children of exposure to violence and illegal
substances. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring)
(“A child's safety and the need for a permanent home are now the primary
concerns when determining a child's best interests.”).
The State presented
evidence that Charles has a long history of relationships with assaultive and
substance abusing men, which has impeded Charles’s ability to protect her
children.
Her individual therapy has been geared towards overcoming this
problem, but Charles has shown little progress in understanding how she
exposes her children to danger.
At the time of the termination hearing, Charles was still residing in an
inpatient drug treatment setting and had regressed from unsupervised to fully
supervised visits with the children. The court was correct in its refusal to grant
her additional time to work towards reunification, when her progress was woefully
inadequate and the children are still waiting. A full measure of patience had
already been extended to her.
These children deserve permanency, which
5
Charles has not been able to provide. We affirm the termination of her parental
rights to all three children.
We also affirm the termination of Matthew’s parental rights to Alize under
section 232.116(1)(i). Having been incarcerated for most of Alize’s life, Matthew
has not had any contact with her for more than one year. He does not expect to
be released until 2010. Termination of parental rights is not a necessary result of
incarceration, see In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 8 (Iowa 1993); however, Matthew
cannot overcome the effect his poor lifestyle choices have had on his ability to
parent his child.
He has contributed to his child’s exposure to drugs, has
engaged in violence against Charles, and is now imprisoned for his criminal
activities. Termination of his parental rights is clearly in Alize’s best interests.
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.
