IN THE INTEREST OF B.P., B.P., C.P., J.P., and C.P., Minor Children, S.A.P., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-728 / 07-1390
Filed October 12, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF
B.P., B.P., C.P., J.P., and C.P.,
Minor Children,
S.A.P., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Louise M. Jacobs,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to five
children. AFFIRMED.
John Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Chris Gonzales,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Yvonne Naanep, Des Moines, for appellee father.
Charles Fuson of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for the minor
children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Baker, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Sherry is the mother of Brittany, Billie, Christina, Joseph, and Charlene.
These children were born between 1996 and 2004. The children first came to
the attention of the juvenile court in May 2006 upon the State’s application for
temporary removal, which noted their parents’ methamphetamine use and the
children’s possible exposure to those drugs. Based on this report, the State filed
a petition alleging the children to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to
Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n) (2005). After finding the parents
were in no position to care for the children due to their continued drug use, the
court adjudicated the children as alleged in the petition. After Sherry failed to
adequately address her drug abuse, the State sought to terminate her parental
rights to the five children. Following a hearing, the court terminated her rights
under sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (l) (2007). 1 Sherry appeals from this order.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 277 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1995).
However, even if those elements are met, the court must still
determine the termination is in the children’s best interests. See In re C.W., 554
N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). While the district court terminated the
parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one
ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544
N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
1
The children’s father consented to the termination of his parental rights.
3
On appeal, Sherry first argues there is insufficient evidence to support the
termination under the grounds found by the juvenile court. In particular, she
claims the State failed to prove the circumstances that led to the children’s
adjudication still continue to exist. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d)(2). She also
claims the State failed to establish that the children cannot be returned to her
home.
See Iowa Code §§ 232.116(1)(f)(4); (l)(3).
Finally, she urges that
termination of her parental rights is not in the best interests of the children. Upon
our de novo review of the record, we reject all of these contentions.
Sherry reportedly began using methamphetamine in 1993 and at the time
of the children’s removal she was using every other day. However, despite the
offer of numerous services, there is little indication that Sherry has successfully
overcome her substance abuse problem.
Sherry was first advised that she
needed to attend the House of Mercy residential treatment center; however, she
disregarded this and instead went to a different outpatient treatment. She left
this program as she continued to use.
In 2007, she eventually entered the
House of Mercy program. Despite being there for over six months at the time of
the termination hearing, she had yet to progress beyond level one of the
program.
The record fully bears out the juvenile court’s concern regarding
Sherry’s “wavering commitment to sobriety.”
The conditions that led to the
adjudication have not been addressed sufficiently to alleviate any adjudicatory
concerns.
Only recently did Sherry progress to supervised visitation of the children.
In the past, it appeared that she was under the influence of drugs while at
visitations.
Furthermore, Sherry has continued to have contact with the
4
children’s father, despite his violent tendencies and apparent continued use of
drugs. When asked to give an explanation for her recommendation to terminate,
social worker Jill Meier testified as follows:
The amount of services she’s been offered, her lack of consistency
with programming at House of Mercy, the safety issues that
continue to exist . . . and just her lack of consistency in her
recovery.
She also expressed concerns about Sherry’s inability “to demonstrate that she
can provide a safe, stable home environment for the children.” For all of these
reasons, including her continuing struggles with her severe and chronic drug use,
we conclude the children cannot be returned to Sherry’s home. See In re J.E.,
723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating
children’s safety and their need for a permanent home are the defining elements
in a child’s best interests).
Finally, we conclude termination of Sherry’s parental rights is in the best
interests of the children. All of the children were out of her home for more than
one year at the time of the termination hearing. They need and deserve the type
of stability and nurturing environment Sherry has proved incapable of providing.
See In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987) (“The crucial days of childhood
cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their own
problems.”). Sherry’s fourteen years of methamphetamine use continued until at
least January of 2007. Based on her prior behaviors, there is a strong possibility
she may never be able to provide for the children’s basic needs. See In re
Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981) (noting evidence of a parent’s past
5
performance may be indicative of the quality of future care the parent is capable
of providing).
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.
