IN THE INTEREST OF C.V., Minor Child, J.V., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-422 / 07-0783
Filed June 27, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF C.V.,
Minor Child,
J.V., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Russell G. Keast,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights by the juvenile
court. AFFIRMED.
Kenneth Martens of Martens Law Office, Marengo, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Tim McMeen, County Attorney for the appellee State.
Dennis Mathahs, Marengo, for the appellee father.
Fred Stiefel, Victor, for the minor child.
Considered by Eisenhauer, P. J., and Baker, J. and Hendrickson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2007).
2
HENDRICKSON, S.J.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Jill and Terry are the parents of Chase, who was born in September
2000. 1 Chase was removed from Jill’s care in April 2005 after he was sexually
abused by Jill’s boyfriend. Jill did not believe Chase’s allegations until they were
admitted by the boyfriend.
Chase was adjudicated to be a child in need of
assistance (CINA). Chase was returned to Jill’s care in May 2005. The CINA
case was closed in September 2005.
Chase was removed from Jill’s care again in October 2005. Chase came
to day care with red marks on his neck. He told workers his mother had choked
him and had thrown him down on the ground. The parties agreed Chase should
be adjudicated CINA under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b), (c) and (n) (2005).
Chase was placed with a maternal aunt. Due to conflicts between Jill and the
aunt, Chase was placed in foster care in August 2006.
Jill has low intellectual functioning.
She has problems with anger
management. A parent study performed by a licensed therapist found Jill had
“relational instability, poor organizational skills, lack of decision-making ability,
and lack of insight into potential dangers for her child.” The report concluded Jill
would be unable to provide a safe, stable home environment for her son. Jill
received services of individual parenting sessions, supervised visitation, mental
health services, and anger management class.
Jill made little progress in
improving her parenting skills.
1
Terry has had little contact with Chase throughout his life.
termination of his parental rights.
He consented to
3
In October 2006, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Jill’s
parental rights. After a hearing, the juvenile court terminated Jill’s parental rights
under sections 232.116(1)(d) and (f). The court rejected Jill’s suggestion to place
Chase with the maternal grandmother or a maternal uncle, finding these
alternatives did “not provide Chase with the level of permanency he deserves.”
The court concluded termination of Jill’s parental rights was in Chase’s best
interests. Jill appeals.
II.
Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698
N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000).
Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d
778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
lll.
Merits
A.
Jill contends her parental rights should not be terminated based on
her mental status alone. It is clear Jill’s parental rights were not terminated
based only on her low intellectual functioning.
Jill’s rights were terminated
because of her anger management problems and because she made very little
improvement in her parenting skills.
She also asserts that due to her low intellectual functioning she should
have been offered different services. A parent has the responsibility to demand
services if they are not offered prior to the termination hearing. In re H.L.B.R.,
567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Jill did not demand additional or
different services prior to the termination hearing. We determine she cannot now
4
claim she did not receive reasonable services. See In re M.B., 595 N.W.2d 815,
818 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (noting the department of human services must make
reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for removal).
B.
Jill asserts the State did not present clear and convincing evidence
sufficient to show her parental rights should be terminated. On our de novo
review of the record we find clear and convincing evidence to support termination
of Jill’s parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(d) and (f). The evidence shows
the circumstances that led to the CINA adjudication continued despite Jill’s
receipt of numerous services. The evidence also shows Chase could not be
safely returned to Jill’s care. Jill continued to struggle with anger management
problems and had difficulty dealing with Chase’s own angry behavior.
C.
Jill claims the juvenile court should have determined termination
was not necessary and placed Chase in the care of the maternal grandmother or
an uncle.
Under section 232.116(3)(a) the juvenile court need not terminate
parental rights if the child is placed in the custody of a relative. This section is
permissive, not mandatory. J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d at 781. It is within the sound
discretion of the juvenile court, based on the best interests of the child, whether
to apply this section. Id. The juvenile court carefully considered placing Chase
with relatives, and determined this was not in his best interests based on his
need for permanency. We concur in the juvenile court’s conclusion.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
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.