IN THE INTEREST OF A.B., Minor Child, A.J.B., Father, Appellant, J.S.B., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-721 / 07-1045
Filed October 12, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.,
Minor Child,
A.J.B., Father,
Appellant,
J.S.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel Block,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
J.S.B. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her child, A.B. AFFIRMED.
Paul Shinkle, Cedar Falls, for appellant father.
Christina M. Shriver, Hudson, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven J. Halbach,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Linnea Nicol, Waterloo, for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Baker, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
J.S.B. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her child, A.B. 1 J.S.B.’s sole contention on appeal is that “the trial court
erred in not granting the mother’s request to defer permanency for six months,
pursuant to Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).” We review J.S.B.’s claim de novo. In
re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) (2007) provides the juvenile court may
[e]nter an order pursuant to section 232.102 to continue placement
of the child for an additional six months at which time the court shall
hold a hearing to consider modification of its permanency order. An
order entered under this paragraph shall enumerate the specific
factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise
the basis for the determination that the need for removal of the child
from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the
additional six-month period.
To continue placement for an additional six months, “the statute requires the
court to make a determination the need for removal will no longer exist at the end
of the extension.”
In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
Therefore, extensions can be appropriate under some circumstances. Id. “‘The
judge considering them should however constantly bear in mind that, if the plan
fails, all extended time must be subtracted from an already shortened life for the
children in a better home.’” Id. at 92-93 (quoting In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609,
613-14 (Iowa 1987), cert. denied sub nom. A.C. v. Iowa, 485 U.S. 1008, 108 S.
Ct. 1474, 99 L. Ed. 2d 702 (1988)).
The record indicates A.B. was removed from parental custody,
adjudicated a child in need of assistance, and placed with relatives because of
1
We note that A.J.B.’s appeal was dismissed because he failed to timely file his petition
on appeal.
3
the risk of harm caused by J.S.B.’s chronic substance abuse. The record also
indicates J.S.B. was offered a variety of services intended to facilitate
reunification, including residential substance abuse treatment. The juvenile court
directed the State to file a petition requesting termination of J.S.B.’s parental
rights after her unauthorized departure from residential treatment resulted in
revocation of her probation on two earlier drug convictions and incarceration for
two consecutive indeterminate five-year terms.
J.S.B. made her request to defer permanency at the hearing on the
State’s petition to terminate her parental rights.
The juvenile court’s ruling
denying J.S.B.’s request and order terminating her parental rights includes the
following findings of fact:
The child in interest, [A.B.], has been removed from her parents’
care since September 19, 2006. The child’s mother, [J.S.B.],
acknowledges using methamphetamine while the child was in the
same apartment and she was providing primary care. [J.S.B.]
admits using methamphetamine since she was eighteen years of
age. [J.S.B.] has a lengthy history of substance abuse, her primary
drug of choice being methamphetamine. [J.S.B.] has not visited
with the child since November, 2006.
[J.S.B.] is currently
incarcerated at the Women’s Correction Facility in Mitchellville,
Iowa. [J.S.B.] was incarcerated after absconding from a local
residential treatment facility she had been placed in for violating
probation by using illegal substances. While at the residential
facility, [J.S.B.] signed out for visits with the child in interest which
she never attended. . . . [J.S.B.] has demonstrated that she is
incapable of putting the child’s needs above her own.
The juvenile court also found that “the parent’s request for an additional six
months of services is not in the best interests of the child.” The record includes
abundant evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings of fact, and we adopt
them as our own. Like the juvenile court, we conclude the requested extension
of time is not appropriate under these circumstances. J.S.B.’s history of chronic
4
substance abuse, failure to avail herself of reunification services, as well as the
probation violation resulting in her extended incarceration preclude any extension
of time under the statute. We have said:
There are a number of stern realities faced by a juvenile judge in
any case of this kind. Among the most important is the relentless
passage of precious time. The crucial days of childhood cannot be
suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their
own problems. Neither will childhood await the wanderings of
judicial process. The children will continue to grow, either in bad or
unsettled conditions or in the improved and permanent shelter
which ideally, at least, follows the conclusion of juvenile
proceedings. . . . [P]atience with parents can soon turn into
intolerable hardship for the[ ] children.
In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d at 613. The same reasoning controls the outcome here.
The juvenile court’s order terminating J.S.B.’s parental rights concerning her
child, A.B., is therefore affirmed.
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.
