IN RE E.S. and D.S., Minor Children, L.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-793 / 07-1556
Filed October 24, 2007
IN RE E.S. and D.S.,
Minor Children,
L.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joe E. Smith, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to two
children. AFFIRMED.
Alexandra Nelissen of Nelissen & Juckette, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jennifer Galloway,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Victoria Meade, West Des Moines, for appellee father.
Michelle Saveraid of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
L.S. is the mother of E.S., who was born in 2004, and D.S., who was born
in 2006. E.S. was removed from her mother’s custody in August of 2006 after
L.S. ingested numerous prenatal vitamins, drank bleach, and smoked crack
cocaine while pregnant with D.S. D.S. was removed from his mother’s custody
shortly after his birth. Both children were subsequently adjudicated to be in need
of assistance. After L.S. failed to cooperate with the many services she was
offered and continued her drug use, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate
her parental rights. Following a hearing on that petition, the court terminated
L.S.’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (h) (2007).
L.S. 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 children. 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 T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa
2000). 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).
On appeal, L.S. first asserts the State failed to provide clear and
convincing evidence supporting termination under any of the provisions cited by
the juvenile court in its termination order. Upon our de novo review of the record,
we conclude the court properly terminated L.S.’s parental rights under section
232.116(1)(d), in that subsequent to the children’s adjudication, L.S. was
3
provided with services aimed at correcting the circumstances that lead to the
adjudication, but that those circumstances continue to exist. The primary reason
for the children’s removal from L.S.’s custody was her substance abuse. The
record reflects that she has taken virtually no steps to overcome this obstacle,
which prevents her from safely parenting her children. L.S. was unsuccessfully
discharged from substance abuse treatment and failed to attend two scheduled
intake appointments at the House of Mercy. She failed to provide a single drug
screen for testing.
L.S. next alleges the court erred in finding termination of her parental
rights would be in the best interests of the children. At the time of the hearing in
this matter, L.S. was incarcerated for a probation violation. She has not had
visitation with the children since May of 2007, and those visits that she did attend
never progressed past supervised. On at least two of the visits, L.S. was either
intoxicated or high on drugs.
E.S. and D.S. have no true mother-child
relationship with L.S., and they are currently in the care of their paternal
grandmother, who has provided them with a secure, drug-free environment, and
who intends to adopt them. We find termination is in the best interests of E.S.
and D.S. We therefore affirm the termination of L.S.’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.
