IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.B., JR., Minor Child, A.D., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-514 / 07-0962
Filed July 12, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.B., JR.,
Minor Child,
A.D., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Mark J.
Eveloff, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
William F. McGinn of McGinn, McGinn, Springer & Noethe, Council Bluffs,
for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Dawn Eimers, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Scott Strait, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. She
contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence. She also contends termination is not in the child’s best
interest. We review these claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147
(Iowa 2002).
The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (h), (i), and (l) (2007).
We need only find
termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274,
276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination of
parental rights if:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(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 six months of the last twelve months, or
for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has
been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be
returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section
232.102 at the present time.
There can be no dispute the first three elements were proven. We additionally
conclude clear and convincing evidence establishes the child cannot be returned
to the mother’s care.
The mother has severe substance dependence issues that remained
unresolved at the time of the termination hearing. She has abused substances
since she was approximately nine years old.
At the time of the termination
hearing, she had been clean and sober for thirty-two days.
requested an additional six months to prove herself.
The mother
The mother had over
3
eighteen months to prove herself. While the law requires a “full measure of
patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills,”
this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232. In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d at 494. Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity
of a natural parent. Id. “At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise
above the rights and needs of the parents.” In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781
(Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
Termination is in the child’s best interest. The child was born in February
2006 and has been out of the mother’s care since August 2006. The last visit
between the mother and child occurred in January 2007.
substance abuse foreclosed additional visits.
The mother’s
The child has bonded with his
foster parents, who wish to adopt him. A permanent placement is in the child’s
best interest. Accordingly, we affirm.
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.
