IN THE INTEREST OF T.P ., T.M., C.M., N.P., and B.C., JR., Minor Children, M.R.P., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-673 / 07-1295
Filed September 19, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF T.P., T.M., C.M., N.P., and
B.C., JR.,
Minor Children,
M.R.P., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to five of
her six children. AFFIRMED.
Kathryn E. Walker of Walker & Bilingsley, Newton, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney, and James Cleverely Jr.,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Joanie Grife, Marshalltown, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to the
oldest five of her six children. 1 She contends the evidence does not support
termination because the children can be returned to her care “in a reasonable
amount of time” and termination is not in the children’s best interest “because
they are bonded and attached” to her. We affirm.
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be established
by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000).
If the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground,
we need to find the evidence supports termination on only one of the grounds
cited by the juvenile court to affirm. In re R.K., 649 N.W.2d 18, 19 (Iowa Ct. App.
2000).
“Clear and convincing evidence” means there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence. C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492.
The children at issue were born in July of 1993, July of 1996, April of
1999, December of 2000, and October of 2003.
The court terminated the
mother’s parental rights to all five children under Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(d) and (e) (2007). The court also terminated her parental rights to the
children four years of age and older under section 232.116(1)(f), and to the child
three or younger under section 232.116(1)(h).
The mother’s contention the
children could be returned to her in a reasonable amount of time does not
1
The sixth child, born in February of 2007, tested positive for cocaine at birth and was
removed from the mother’s care. The court waived reasonable efforts for reunification
with this child the same day it terminated the mother’s parental rights to the five oldest
children.
3
address the statutory grounds in sections 232.116(1)(d) (child in need of
assistance for physical or sexual abuse (or neglect), circumstances continue
despite receipt of services) or (e) (child in need of assistance, child removed for
six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the
child). It only tangentially addresses the grounds in sections 232.116(1)(f) and
(h) because subsection (4) of each mentions the time for returning the children to
the parent. However, both sections require a finding the child cannot be returned
to the parent’s custody “at the present time,” not “in a reasonable amount of
time.”
At the time of the termination hearing in June of 2007, the mother had not
had visitation with the children since about August of 2006. Although she was in
residential substance abuse treatment, she had not progressed to the point the
children could be returned to her care, even on a trial basis. She admitted using
drugs as recently as November of 2006, but her child born in February of 2007
tested positive for cocaine. The youngest of the five children at issue here tested
positive for cocaine, marijuana, and PCP at birth in 2003. We find clear and
convincing evidence supports termination on each statutory ground cited by the
court.
The mother also contends termination is inappropriate “because they are
attached and bonded” to her.
Under section 232.116(3)(c) the court has
discretion not to terminate parental rights if it finds termination “would be
detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child
relationship.” The State contends error was not preserved because the court did
not address this issue.
4
At the hearing, the mother was asked to describe her relationship with the
children. She said, “Oh, right now, I don’t know. I know they love me, . . .” The
court found the current custodians acknowledge that “the children still love their
mother.” We do not find clear and convincing evidence that termination would be
detrimental to the children because of the closeness of the parent-child bond.
The court did not abuse its discretion in not declining to terminate the mother’s
parental rights on this ground.
When considering the children’s best interest, we “give primary
consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the longterm nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional
needs of the child.”
Iowa Code § 232.116(2).
The five children are placed
together in the home of relatives who want to adopt them. The relatives can and
do see to medical and psychological needs.
children.
They care for and nurture the
They encourage the children in their education.
The record
demonstrates the mother has not done these things. See In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d
32, 34 (Iowa 1993) (“Case history records are entitled to much probative force
when a parent's record is being examined.”) We find termination of her parental
rights is in the children’s best interest.
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.
