IN THE INTEREST OF R.W., Minor Child, D.W., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-670 / 07-1291
Filed September 19, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF R.W.,
Minor Child,
D.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Barbara A. Connolly, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
H. Nick Gloe of Gloe & Quint, Cedar Rapids, for minor child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Dianna appeals the termination of her parental rights to R.W., born in
2006. She contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support
termination under the grounds cited by the juvenile court. See Iowa Code §
232.116(1)(g), (h) (2005).
Where more than one statutory ground for termination is cited, we may
affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to support any of those grounds.
In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). On our de novo review
of the record, we conclude that the State proved termination was warranted
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (requiring proof of several elements
including proof that child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody).
R.W. was removed from Dianna’s care shortly after birth, based on
hospital personnel’s concerns that Dianna was not properly caring for the child.
In a report to the court shortly after the child was removed, Department of Human
Services (Department) social workers stated:
Dianna’s home is not recommended at this time due to the
ongoing concerns with her mental and physical health as well as
her limited parental capacity to safely parent this child. Dianna will
need to continue cooperating with family centered services and
make consistent improvements in her parenting abilities to care for
this child.
The social workers also noted that two of Dianna’s other children had been
removed from her care based on similar concerns.
As a result of those previous removals, Dianna began receiving services
to address her parenting deficiencies as early as the fall of 2003.
Dianna
cooperated with the Department and with service providers. Before R.W. was
3
removed, she found an apartment that met with the Department’s approval,
maintained regular employment, 1 engaged a payee to assist her with finances,
and obtained treatment for depression and anxiety.
After R.W. was removed, Dianna continued her efforts to maintain her
apartment. Although she curtailed services with one provider who was assisting
with home services, she immediately engaged another provider, albeit for less
time per week. When the new service provider expressed concern about the
cleanliness of the carpets in her apartment, she created a cleaning schedule for
herself.
Dianna also participated in supervised visits with R.W.
She regularly
attended two scheduled visits per week and eventually graduated to semisupervised visits. 2 At the termination hearing, she testified she was able to care
for R.W. She stated that she had obtained a block grant to pay for child care
while she worked and she would continue her participation in a young parents’
network.
These steps met with the service provider’s approval.
Within a few
months of R.W.’s removal, home health care workers commented that Dianna
was moving forward on most, if not all, of the Department’s objectives.
For
example, they characterized her apartment as “clean and appropriate for visits”
and stated Dianna was “able to provide for [R.W.’s] basic physical needs.”
1
Dianna only worked eight hours per week but she also received $550 per month from
the Social Security Administration as well as $50-100 per month in food stamps.
2
The social worker stayed in the upstairs of Dianna’s apartment for a portion of the visit,
while Dianna attended to R.W. downstairs.
4
Although they later were more circumspect in their comments, the problems they
pointed to were minor. 3
These positive developments might have militated in favor of returning
R.W. to Dianna. However, the record contains two countervailing considerations.
First, the professionals involved with Dianna expressed reservations about
Dianna’s ability to care for her child on a regular, unsupervised basis.
For
example, one service provider testified that Dianna “can do whatever is asked of
her, but I don’t think if she were given time without that supervision that she
would be able to maintain.” Another social worker testified that Dianna showed
“more effort” than she had in the past, but it was unclear whether Dianna could
care for R.W. on a full-time basis without her assistance. A Department social
worker testified along the same lines, stating that Dianna had “difficulty
recognizing and predicting potential safety concerns,” and needed “consistent
reminding and prompting.” She opined that an additional six months of services
would likely not benefit Dianna.
There was also concern expressed about Dianna’s choice of companions
and her history of exposing her children to people who could harm them. For
example, the Department’s social worker testified that two men under the
supervision of the Department of Adult Correctional Services had listed Dianna’s
address “as an address that [they] could furlough to.” Additionally, a service
provider found correspondence between Dianna and a prisoner.
Although
Dianna testified she stopped corresponding with the man, the Department cited
3
In December 2006, shortly before the termination hearing, they noted that Dianna had
trouble getting the vacuum cleaner up and down the stairs and had pop cans and tape
dispensers on her coffee table, as well as a long telephone cord in reach of R.W.
5
this factor as further evidence of Dianna’s lack of judgment in the friends she
kept.
Based on these two considerations, we conclude the State established
that R.W. could not be returned to Dianna’s custody.
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.
