IN THE INTEREST OF B. E.J.M. and J.M.A.E., Minor Children, S.E., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-796 / 07-1554
Filed November 15, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF B.E.J.M. and J.M.A.E.,
Minor Children,
S.E., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Lucy J.
Gamon, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Powell of Tindal & Kitchen, P.L.C., Washington, for appellant
mother.
Katherine McConnell, Washington, for father of B.E.J.M.
Kathryn Salazar of Day, Meeker, Lamping, Schlegel & Salazar,
Washington, for father of J.M.A.E.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Barbara A. Edmondson, County Attorney, for appellee
State.
Sue Kirk, Iowa City, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
2
MAHAN, J.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to two of her
children. She claims the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the children could not be returned to her care and the district court
improperly found that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best
interests.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The mother has two children which are the subjects of these termination
proceedings, J.M.A.E. and B.E.J.M.
J.M.A.E. was born in September 2003.
B.E.J.M. was born in April 2005. J.M.A.E.’s biological father is Anthony, the
mother’s husband. B.E.J.M.’s biological father is Kevin. Although the mother
and Anthony are legally married, they have not resided together or maintained a
marital relationship throughout these proceedings. The mother also has a baby
daughter who is not a subject of these termination proceedings.
The mother testified she believed J.M.A.E. and B.E.J.M. first came to the
Iowa Department of Human Services’ (DHS) attention as a result of her charge of
possession of marijuana in February 2006. However, DHS records indicate it
was a May 2006 report stating that a registered sex offender, Darius, was living
with the mother and children that first got the attention of DHS. The mother and
Darius have been dating since September 2005. Darius has two sexual abuse
convictions, one in 1985 and one in 1992. His criminal record also consists of
convictions for possession of a controlled substance, disorderly conduct,
operating while intoxicated, and three separate convictions for burglary. The
mother was aware of Darius’s sexual abuse convictions. Darius is the biological
3
father of the mother’s youngest child who is not a subject of these proceedings.
After the report was investigated by DHS, the children were moved to Anthony’s
home.
On July 6, 2005, a petition was filed alleging the children to be in need of
assistance. After an allegation of child abuse was reported against Anthony and
his paramour, Melanie, the boys were voluntarily placed in the home of their
maternal grandmother. On September 14, 2006, both boys were returned to
Anthony’s care. On October 4, 2006, the children were adjudicated to be in need
of assistance with respect to the mother for not providing adequate supervision
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2005) because the mother placed
the children in danger of sexual abuse by exposing them to a known sex
offender.
Since that time, DHS has provided the mother with multiple services,
including family centered services, visitation, substance abuse testing,
psychological evaluation, protective day care, early access AEA evaluation for
the children, family team meetings, Title XIX, and Family Investment Program or
food stamps. The mother was allowed virtually unlimited unsupervised visitation
with the children from July 2006 until May 2007. However, from August until
November 2006, the mother had no face-to-face contact with the boys. From
November 2006 until May 2007, she had two face-to-face visits with her children.
The mother called the children on the phone multiple times every week, but was
unable to hold a beneficial conversation due to the children’s young ages. The
children attended day care near the mother’s home where she was permitted to
visit them. She made two visits to the day care and claimed she could not afford
4
transportation. Public transportation to and from the day care costs about $1.50.
The boys had tubes placed in their ears in October 2006. The mother knew this
but did not attend the surgery.
The mother had one supervised visit in which the provider was concerned
about the mother’s ability to supervise the boys and her new baby at the same
time. At this visit the boys were playing outside. When the baby got warm the
mother took her inside and left her lying on the floor with a propped up bottle.
Although the baby was within view of the mother, the provider was concerned the
baby might choke on the bottle and the mother would never know. Although
there appeared to be a bond between the mother and the boys, the provider
observed little interaction between them. The mother did not seem to know how
to make appropriate conversation with the boys. She told J.M.A.E. about her
night at the casino but failed to ask him about himself or his activities.
On November 29, 2006, the court ordered the mother to complete a
psychological evaluation to be paid for by the State. She made an appointment
at the designated clinic for January 5, 2007, failed to show up, could not be
reached, and never called to reschedule.
There is concern that the mother
struggles with depression, stress, and possibly an attention deficit disorder
preventing her from staying on task.
Twenty-four parent skill service
appointments were scheduled for the mother before the dispositional hearing.
The mother attended twelve.
The court also ordered that Darius have no contact with the boys unless
he completed a new sex offender evaluation and followed all recommendations
for treatment, as well as consented to regular polygraph examinations and
5
develop a relapse prevention plan. He made no attempt to complete any of
these tasks. As a result, the mother was unable to have visits with her children in
her own home. During the course of these proceedings Darius’s baby was also
the subject of a DHS child abuse investigation.
The child protective worker
assigned to that case found that Darius was not an imminent risk to the baby, but
did state that if Darius had not been the father of the child he would have been
legally required to found the report.
The mother is consistent at maintaining a full-time job. She does not have
a vehicle, and her driver’s license is suspended due to unpaid fines. However,
she lives in Coralville where many stores and services are accessible by foot and
public transportation. The mother has income from her job, Darius has social
security disability income, and the couple benefits from food stamps, Title XIX
and subsidized housing.
On May 24, 2007, the court ordered that a petition for termination of
parental rights be filed. It also ordered B.E.J.M. to be placed in the home of his
biological father, Kevin. The record reflects that, although the boys missed their
mother at first, they have now adjusted well into their new living situations with
their fathers. J.M.A.E. rarely talks about his mother and is no longer excited to
go on visits. He has a memory of who his mother is, but is no longer bonded with
her. B.E.J.M. no longer wants to go on visits at all. He has adjusted well into the
home of his biological father and step-mother and has bonded with his younger
half-sister. After B.E.J.M. was placed with Kevin, Kevin requested the visits with
the mother be supervised because of the length of time that had elapsed since
the last visit. The court granted the request. There were five scheduled visits
6
between the dispositional review hearing and the termination of parental rights
hearing. The mother attended three. From August 2006 until August 2007, the
mother saw J.M.A.E. six times and B.E.J.M. five times.
Between the
dispositional review hearing and the termination of parental rights hearing there
were ten parent skills sessions scheduled. The mother attended eight.
The district court ordered termination of the mother’s parental rights to
J.M.A.E. pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) and (e) (2007) and her
rights to B.E.J.M. pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (h).
II. Standard of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793,
798 (Iowa 2006). Although we give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings
we are not bound by them. Id. The grounds for termination must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence. Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of
the children. Id.
III. Merits
The mother’s parental rights to J.M.A.E. were terminated by the district
court pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) and (e). Her parental rights
to B.E.J.M. were terminated pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (h). The
mother claims there was no clear and convincing evidence that the children could
not be returned to her home and the district court improperly found that
termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we are only required to find termination proper under one
ground to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The
7
mother does not contest termination of her parental rights under section
232.116(1)(e). In any event, we find termination to be proper under that section.
We note that the mother herself admitted she had a long way to go to become an
adequate parent for her children. She continues to live with a sex offender who
is unwilling to fulfill the requirements to prove that he is a suitable person to be
involved in the boys’ lives. Caseworkers have not been able to evaluate her
apartment to determine if it would be an appropriate place for a child, and the
mother has failed to take the steps required to attend psychological testing and
parenting classes. There is no doubt that these children could not be returned to
her care at this time or anytime in the near future.
The mother also claims it is not in the best interests of the children to
terminate her parental rights because of the bond she and the children share.
Even a strong bond between a child and a parent, however, is not enough by
itself to negate termination of a parent’s rights. In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341
(Iowa Ct. App. 1998). The existence of a parent-child bond must be weighed
against other factors. Id. In this case, there does not appear to be any strong
bond with the boys. Her lack of effort to visit them shows that she does not feel a
strong need to spend time with them, and the boys’ disinterest in attending visits
shows they do not feel a strong bond in return.
Any bond felt between the
mother and her boys quickly diminished at their young ages when the mother did
not maintain regular contact with them over the past year. She cannot right this
wrong at this late stage upon the realization that her parental rights might be
extinguished. The lack of strong bonding, along with the fact that the mother has
made little effort to comply with the permanency plan in order to be able to have
8
the boys returned to her home, shows that it is in the best interests of the
children for the mother’s rights to be terminated. The boys have settled into their
new lives with their fathers and are doing well. The occasional presence of their
mother in their lives will only confuse them. It is therefore in the children’s best
interests that the mother’s parental rights be terminated.
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.
