IN THE INTEREST OF D.D. and D.R., Minor Children, S.M.D., Mother, Appellant, M.J.D., Father of D.D., Appellant, C.S.R., Father of D.R., Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-792 / 07-1472
Filed October 24, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF D.D. and D.R.,
Minor Children,
S.M.D., Mother,
Appellant,
M.J.D., Father of D.D.,
Appellant,
C.S.R., Father of D.R.,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
Parents appeal from the order terminating their parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Ronald L. Ricklefs, Cedar Rapids for appellant mother.
John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids for appellant father of D.D.
Michael M. Lindeman, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father of D.R.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Barbara Connolly, Cedar Rapids, for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings
The family in this appeal is composed of five persons. The children are
Derek, age ten, and Dakota, age eight. Shelley is the mother of both children.
She is married to Matt, the father of Dakota. Shelley was formerly married to
Chris, who is the father of Derek. Chris lived with the family during a portion of
these proceedings.
Both children have special needs. Dakota has learning disabilities and
delays in his speech. Derek is mentally retarded and has problems with his
motor skills and balance. He also has seizures approximately once per month.
Because of his poor balance and seizures, he wears a helmet when he is outside
the family home.
This family has a long history with the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS). Prior to 2003, there were five reported instances of abuse or
neglect.
On each occasion, the abuse was not founded, but services were
recommended. The family did not follow through with services and maintained a
very defensive posture about their ability to meet the needs of their children.
In January 2003 school officials contacted DHS when the children came to
school with bumps, bruises, and scratches. Derek also had a cut on his ear that
required eight stitches. Their parents were unable to explain the origin of these
injuries. School officials also told DHS that they frequently cleaned the children
because they came to school with animal feces and urine on their clothing. The
boys were also intermittently afflicted with lice and fleas. A DHS investigator
went to the family home and discovered the home was filthy, full of safety
3
hazards, and contained three large dogs and eleven cats.
Multiple piles of
animal feces were scattered throughout the house. Matt admitted that he had
bruised one of the children during a severe spanking.
DHS filed a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition on January 6,
2003.
The children were voluntarily placed in foster care until the removal
hearing. At the March removal hearing, the court found the parents had made
substantial efforts to clean the home. The court also accepted Matt’s statement
that he would not spank the children in this manner again. Ultimately, the court
found there was not substantial evidence to support continued removal, and the
children were returned to their parents’ care.
On May 8, 2003, the parents stipulated that the children were in need of
assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), (g), and (e)
(2003). However, the court allowed the children to continue to live with their
parents. The family reluctantly cooperated with family services. Initially, DHS
providers monitored the home numerous times per week, and the conditions of
the home improved. However, when the providers cut back their visits with the
family, the cleanliness conditions in the home rapidly deteriorated.
School
officials reported that the children came to school with poor hygiene and smelling
of animal urine.
The parents were also becoming more uncooperative with DHS. They
refused access to certain areas of the home.
Shelly and Matthew yelled
obscenities at a worker, and Matthew stated, “You don’t want to make me mad
because it won’t be pretty.”
The providers reported that the family was not
internalizing the skills taught in services.
4
After a contested modification hearing, the juvenile court ordered that the
children be removed from their parents’ care on March 2, 2005. 1 The parents
were granted one hour of supervised visitation per week. Shelley’s participation
in visitation was fairly consistent, but Matt’s attendance was very inconsistent.
Chris visited Derek separately.
His attendance was very consistent and he
eventually progressed to semi-supervised visitations.
On May 22, 2006, Matt filed a formal request with the juvenile court asking
for unsupervised visitation and visitation on the weekends. The juvenile court
denied this request, noting that the parents were not fully participating in the
parenting sessions and not demonstrating improved parenting skills. While DHS
did not allow unsupervised visitations with Shelley and Matt, it did increase the
length of visitation and change the visitation times to the weekends to
accommodate Matt’s work schedule.
The State filed a petition to terminate the parents’ parental rights in July
2006. The court held a multiple-day hearing on the petition. Ultimately, the court
terminated the parental rights of all three parents pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) (2007). Each parent appeals separately.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination of parental rights de novo. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d
793, 798 (Iowa 2006). Grounds for termination must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence, and our primary concern is the children’s best interests. Id.
1
Our court affirmed the modification order in May 2005.
5
III. Merits
A. Statutory Grounds for Termination
All three parents claim there were insufficient statutory grounds to
terminate their parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f). Section (f)
provides that parental rights can be terminated if there is clear and convincing
evidence that the children are four years of age or older; the children have been
adjudicated CINA; the children have been removed from the physical custody of
their parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months or for the last twelve
consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days;
and there is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the children
cannot be returned to the custody of the parents as provided in section 232.102.
The evidence supporting the first three elements is not in dispute. The parties
only dispute whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the children could not
be returned to their care.
Chris.
Our inquiry under section (f) is whether the children can be
returned to the parent’s care “at the present time.” Chris testified that he was not
able to provide for Derek’s care at the time of the hearing. He indicated he did
not have permanent housing, and he told the court he would not be able to care
for Derek for at least the next six to twelve months. His position at the hearing
was that he did not want his parental rights terminated and he wanted the
children to be returned to Shelley and Matt.
While the law demands a full
measure of patience with a troubled parent who attempts to remedy a lack of
parenting skill, In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987), it also establishes
that termination should occur if the statutory time period has elapsed and the
6
parent is still unable to care for the child. See in re M.Z., 481 N.W.2d 532,
536 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). By his own admission, Chris was not ready to have
Derek returned to his care at the time of the termination proceeding.
We
therefore affirm the termination of his parental rights under the statutory grounds
set forth in section 232.116(1)(f).
Shelley and Matt. Shelley and Matt maintain, as they have argued since
the March 2005 removal, that their parental skills are sufficient and the children
can be returned to their care. Matt raises the additional argument that he was
not given the opportunity to prove that the children could be returned to his care.
He argues DHS did not make reasonable efforts towards reunification because
they did not allow unsupervised visitation.
We disagree with both arguments.
Since the beginning of the CINA
proceedings, Shelley and Matt have been unwilling to acknowledge their
deficiencies in parenting skills. Their participation in parenting-skills classes has
been unproductive because of their negative attitude towards the entire situation.
Their actions during the supervised visitations and their testimony during the
termination hearing also demonstrates that they have not internalized any new
parenting skills and are unwilling to take direction from care providers. When the
providers observed Shelley and Matt’s interactions with the children during
supervised visitation, they found Shelley and Matt were unable to relate to the
emotional needs of the children. For example, on one occasion Dakota used the
term “mom” to describe his foster mother. Shelley became very upset and Matt
reprimanded Dakota by shouting in his face until Dakota apologized to Shelley.
On other occasions, both parents dealt with behavioral problems by escalating
7
the situation, rather than using appropriate parenting skills.
When Dakota
returned from these supervised visitations, he exhibited behavioral problems that
did not occur during other times of the week.
In light of Shelley’s and Matt’s impulsive actions, uncooperative attitude,
and inability to appropriately respond to the emotional needs of their children,
DHS refused to allow semi-supervised visitation, let alone a trial home
placement. On the other hand, Chris participated in family-centered services,
applied his new parenting skills during visitations, and had appropriate
interactions with Derek.
In turn, DHS allowed Chris to advance to semi-
supervised visitations and suggested on multiple occasions that he take Derek
out in the community during visitation. Chris chose not do so because he feared
that Shelley would be upset if she learned he had greater visitation privileges.
As evidenced by Chris’s progression to semi-supervised visitations, DHS
was not averse to anything less than supervised visitation. Shelley and Matt
simply refused to cooperate and did not attempt to address their parenting
deficiencies.
When Matt requested that the court intervene to order
unsupervised or semi-supervised visitation, the court rejected this request, noting
the same problems as set forth above. However, DHS responded to the request
and gave them a chance to prove their skills by granting the request for longer
visits and extended weekend visitation.
It is vital in a juvenile matter that a parent recognizes when a child has
been victimized so that meaningful change can occur to protect the child in the
future. In re H.R.K., 433 N.W.2d 46, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988). “A parent’s failure
to address his or her role in the abuse may hurt the parents’ chances of regaining
8
custody and care of their children.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Iowa
2002). Shelley and Matt had twenty months to learn new parenting skills and
prove that they could provide for their children’s physical and emotional needs.
While they made some progress by cleaning the family home and attending
some parenting classes, they are still not able to provide for all of their children’s
needs. Upon our de novo review of the record, we find clear and convincing
evidence that the children cannot be returned to their parents’ care at this time.
We also find the State has proved that DHS made reasonable efforts towards
family reunification.
B. Best Interests
Proof of a statutory ground for termination is not dispositive. We must
also determine whether it is in the children’s best interests to terminate parental
rights. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
While it is clear that the parents love their children, it is equally clear that
they cannot now, or in the foreseeable future, provide them with a stable
environment. Since removal, Derek and Dakota have lived in a loving and stable
environment. As a result, numerous individuals report remarkable changes in
their emotional and physical well-being.
For example, Derek’s neurologist
testified that he has seen striking improvements since Derek entered foster care.
Derek has been acting at a higher level of function and his vocabulary has
expanded. While Derek is still “profoundly delayed,” the neurologist stated that
Derek had progressed by “leaps and bounds since being in foster care.” The
neurologist attributed these improvements to his new environment.
9
As recently noted by our supreme court, a child’s safety and need for a
permanent home are the defining elements in the child’s best interests. J.E., 723
N.W.2d at 801 (Cady, J., concurring specially). These children have waited more
than twenty months for their parents to both learn and utilize appropriate
parenting skills. They should not be forced to wait any longer. See A.C., 415
N.W.2d at 613 (“The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while
parents experiment with ways to face up to their own problems.”); In re J.L.W.,
570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“When the statutory time standards
found in section 232.116 are approaching, and a parent has made only minimal
progress, the child deserves to have the time standards followed by having
termination of parental rights promptly pursued.”). These children are adoptable,
and we find it is in their best interests to terminate their parents’ parental rights so
that they can have permanency and the chance to grow in a stable and secure
environment.
Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Shelley’s, Matt’s, and Chris’s
parental rights.
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.
