IN THE INTEREST OF M.F. and C.F., Minor Children, K.F., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-416 / 07-0676
Filed June 27, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF M.F. and C.F.,
Minor Children,
K.F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District
Associate Judge.
K.F. appeals from the order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
J. Michael Mayer, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Nancy Pietz, Des Moines, for father.
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.
Cathleen Siebrecht, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
K.F. appeals from the termination of her parental rights. K.F. is the mother
of C.F. (age twelve) and M.F. (age nine). S.F. is the father of the children and is
not a party to this appeal. He currently has custody of the children.
The children were removed from the home on November 21, 2002,
because their parents had kept the home in an unsanitary condition and were
unable to provide for them. The parents were also suffering from substance
abuse and mental health issues.
The children were initially placed with a
neighbor. A month after the removal, the children were placed in the custody of
a paternal aunt for nearly two years and permanency was established during that
time. At some point during 2003, S.F. filed for divorce from K.F. On October 1,
2004, the girls were placed in the custody of a maternal aunt and uncle. On
August 3, 2006, S.F. moved to modify the permanency order. The district court
granted the motion and entered an order returning the children to their father’s
custody.
K.F.’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(b) (2007) (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), (f) (child four or older, child CINA, removed
from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned
home). On appeal, K.F. argues the district court erred when it found clear and
convincing
evidence
to
terminate
her
parental
rights
under
sections
232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (f) and that termination of her parental rights is not in
3
the best interests of the children. When the district court 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).
We review K.F.’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 Dameron, 306
N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981).
K.F. first contends the district court lacked clear and convincing evidence
to terminate her parental rights. Section 232.116(1)(f) states that termination of
parental rights is permitted when
all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(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 twelve of the last eighteen months, or
for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the
present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the
child’s parents as provided in section 232.102.
She concedes the State has met its burden on the first three elements and
argues there is not clear and convincing evidence the children cannot be
returned to her custody.
In support of her claim, she notes that she “has
stabilized her life and consistently sought visitation; that she has a strong,
bonded, and loving relationship with and from these children; and that she is
ready, willing and able to regain custody” of them. K.F. was homeless up until
several weeks before the termination hearing. She is now in transitional housing
4
and she has a Golden Circle worker. At the time of the hearing, she had applied
for disability benefits a fourth time and was awaiting a decision. She hoped to
move to permanent housing within several months. She was also starting a
partial hospitalization program at Broadlawns.
While the record shows K.F. obviously loves her children very much, it
does not support K.F.’s claim that she has a strong, bonded relationship with her
children. K.F. was not present at a hearing to confirm the placement of the
children with the father in November 2006.
A temporary no-contact order
between her and the children was entered against her at that hearing. By the
time of the hearing, she had not had contact with her daughters in over a year.
K.F.’s contact with her daughters has been progressively reduced throughout the
pendency of this case. Her visitation was reduced in 2003 because of her failure
to meet expectations. She had missed visits and repeatedly failed to schedule
visits. In July 2005 her DHS worker decided to end phone calls until the children
could be seen by a therapist because the worker felt K.F. was inappropriate
during her phone conversations and in letters to the children. K.F. was telling the
girls they would be home with her soon and that other people were at fault for
their situation.
She also told the children she would be sending birthday
presents, but the children never received them.
K.F. has struggled with homelessness and substance abuse for over four
years.
She has also suffered from various physical maladies as well as
depression and other mental health issues. She claims she has only been able
to work sporadically.
However, she did not sufficiently comply with services
offered to her. K.F. was discharged from Rainbow Recovery Center in April
5
2004. She had been granted a weekend pass to Omaha to see her daughters
for Easter but never arrived there.
She was also asked to provide a urine
sample, which was positive for cocaine. In 2003 she was asked to complete a
psychosocial evaluation at Two Rivers Psychological Services but only attended
the first of two required appointments.
appointments in 2003.
She repeatedly missed therapy
She stopped providing urine samples for analysis in
March 2003. It appears she resumed providing samples in June 2004. She has
also never provided financial support for the children since their removal.
K.F. has undoubtedly had a very difficult life. While the recent progress
she has made is admirable, she had many opportunities early on that she failed
to utilize. K.F. has had four years to get permanent housing and the treatment
she needs, but she has failed to do so. A parent cannot wait until the eve of
termination, after the statutory time periods for reunification have expired, to
begin to express an interest in parenting. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa
2000). K.F. has waited too long to cooperate with services, and her current
progress is no guarantee she will be able to maintain the stability the children
require.
Case history records are entitled to much probative force when
considering a parent’s past performance to assess their ability to provide future
care. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). When viewed in the context of
the last four and a half years, a few months of stability in K.F.’s life does not give
us confidence that she has turned her life around and is now capable of being
the parent her children need. The State has proved by clear and convincing
evidence the children cannot be returned to K.F. at the present time.
6
K.F. next contends that termination of her parental rights is not in her
children’s best interests. 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) (citation
omitted). When determining a child’s best interests, we look to both the child’s
immediate and long-range interests. In re M.N.W., 577 N.W.2d 874, 875 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1998). We consider what the future holds for the child if returned to his
or her parents. In re T.T., 541 N.W.2d 552, 555 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Insight for
this determination can be gained from evidence of the parents’ past performance,
for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care that the
parent is capable of providing. Id.
The family’s therapist testified the children feel very welcome and
“extremely wanted” in their home. The district court noted C.F. and M.F. have a
“solid and secure” relationship with their father. The district court also noted
[the children] have developed a warm and secure relationship with
their stepmother and stepbrother and want the security of having
the stepmother adopt them so that they know legally, as well as
emotionally, that they now have a permanent home. As they have
been moved several times, even after developing a secure
relationship with their caregivers, they now seek legal certainty.
The family’s therapist testified the children have an absolute need for stability.
C.F. and M.F. have a permanent, stable, loving home with a parent and stepparent who are capable of providing for their needs. Their family’s therapist was
confident that if S.F. and his wife needed help in the future, they would know
about the resources they could use. Unfortunately, K.F. has not demonstrated a
similar ability to use the resources and services available to her to help her solve
7
her problems. K.F. did not take the necessary steps to maintain a bond with her
children when she failed to contact them for a year. We find the State has met its
burden for proving termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(f). We
conclude termination is in the best interests of these children. Accordingly, we
affirm the order terminating K.F.’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.
