IN THE INTEREST OF D.B., Minor Child, T.J.R., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-879 / 07-1712
Filed November 29, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF D.B.,
Minor Child,
T.J.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Alan D. Allbee,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Jeremiah White, West Union, for appellant mother.
Richard Buffington, Oelwein, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, W. Wayne Saur, County Attorney, and Nathan Lein, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Andrew Thalacker, Waterloo, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to her child. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Tabatha and Matthew are the parents of Dakota, born in May 2005. 1
Dakota was born in Minnesota. The child tested positive for methamphetamine
at the time of her birth due to her mother’s use of the drug during pregnancy.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services became involved with Dakota
four days after her birth and placed the child with her father, conditioned on drug
testing.
A short time later, the father tested positive for marijuana.
The
Minnesota authorities removed Dakota from Matthew’s care and placed her with
her paternal grandparents in Iowa. Dakota’s parents refrained from illegal drug
use for three or four months, and Dakota was returned to her parents’ care in
September 2005. The parents and Dakota resided in Iowa at the time they were
reunited.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (Department) became involved
with the family on December 22, 2005, after an investigation revealed
methamphetamine in the parents’ home. At that time, Matthew tested positive for
marijuana, and Tabatha admitted to using methamphetamine.
Dakota was
removed from her parents and returned to the care of her paternal grandparents.
Dakota was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) on
January 27, 2006. Following adjudication, Dakota remained in her grandparents’
care while her parents received a variety of services designed to safely transition
1
Matthew has not appealed from the termination of his parental rights.
3
Dakota back to their care. The parents remained free of illegal substances for six
months and completed substance abuse treatment. Following a review hearing
on July 7, 2006, Dakota was returned to her parents. The juvenile court “advised
that any further relapse and the use of illegal controlled substances while caring
for the child will no doubt result in the child’s removal and most likely termination
of parental rights.”
Following a review hearing in December 2006, the juvenile court
continued Dakota’s placement with her parents.
Because the parents had
separated, they agreed to a visitation schedule allowing the mother to have
Dakota during the day and the father to have her overnight. At the time of the
review hearing, the juvenile court was unaware that the parents had not been
compliant with services provided by an in-home worker. 2
In January 2007 Dakota’s father tested positive for methamphetamine and
admitted that both he and Dakota’s mother had used methamphetamine as
recently as January 13.
On January 22 Dakota tested positive for
methamphetamine exposure. The following day, Dakota was removed from her
parents’ custody and was placed with her paternal grandparents.
The State filed a petition to terminate Tabatha’s and Matthew’s parental
rights on June 28, 2007. The following day a permanency hearing was held, and
Tabatha admitted to using methamphetamine in January 2007.
2
The in-home service provider began working with the family in September 2006. The
parents were compliant with her services from September 20 until October 25, 2006;
however, they then “bailed” and failed to meet with her. The service provider was
unable to locate the parents until December 16, 2006. Thus, between the end of
October and mid-December, no supervision of the case, nor any drug testing, could be
done.
4
The juvenile court held a contested termination hearing on September 19,
2007. At the hearing, the Department supervisor recommended both parents’
rights be terminated. The supervisor testified that although Tabatha had been
cooperating with the in-home worker since Dakota’s removal in January 2007,
she had concerns about the pattern of Tabatha’s drug use, noting this was
Dakota’s third removal from her parents’ custody. The parents’ in-home service
provider testified that when she became involved in this case in September 2006,
the parents’ involvement was initially very sporadic up until January 2007, but
following Dakota’s removal in January, Tabatha had been cooperative and had
refrained from illegal drug use.
Based on Tabatha’s recent cooperation with
services, the in-home provider stated that she saw no imminent risk of harm in
returning Dakota to her mother.
However, she also testified that she had
concerns about Tabatha’s stability and stated that she would “have to see if
Tabatha can maintain the stability that she has incurred in the past couple
months.”
The child’s guardian ad litem recognized that Tabatha had made
positive strides since January, but was hesitant to recommend Dakota be
returned to her mother at the time of the termination hearing given Tabatha’s
history of relapse and lack of cooperation.
He recommended a six-month
continuance to allow Tabatha additional time to show that she can be abstinent in
the long-term without relapse.
In an order filed September 20, the juvenile court terminated Tabatha’s
and Matthew’s parental rights to Dakota pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(h) (2007) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home
for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home) and
5
232.116(1)(l) (child CINA, parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be
returned within a reasonable time). Only Tabatha has appealed.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d
147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be supported by clear
and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). We are
primarily concerned with the child’s best interests in termination proceedings. In
re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Even when the statutory
grounds for termination are met, the decision to terminate parental rights must
reflect the child’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
When we consider the child’s best interests, we look to her long-range as well as
immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). In
determining what the future holds for the child if returned to the parent, we look to
the parent’s past performance because it may indicate the quality of care the
parent is capable of providing in the future. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493-94
(Iowa 1990).
III. Discussion.
In this appeal Tabatha contends the grounds for termination were not
supported by clear and convincing evidence. She also maintains termination is
not in the best interests of the child. Upon our review of the record, we find no
merit in any of the mother’s arguments.
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we only need to find grounds to terminate under one of the
sections cited by the court in order to affirm the court’s ruling. In re S.R., 600
6
N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
In this case, we choose to focus our
attention on section 232.116(1)(h) (child is three or younger, child CINA,
removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned
home) as the basis for termination.
Tabatha contends the court erred in terminating her parental rights
because the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Dakota
could not be returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing. Upon
our review of the record, we disagree. Tabatha has an extensive history of drug
use. 3 Most recently, Tabatha admitted to using methamphetamine in January
2007.
Although Dakota was removed from her parents’ care at that time,
Tabatha did not obtain another substance abuse evaluation until May 2007. She
did not enter a dual diagnosis treatment program, for mental health and
substance abuse, until mid-May 2007.
And it was not until June 2007 that
Tabatha obtained employment.
Although Tabatha has made recent progress, there is no assurance that
this progress will be long term. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000)
(“While [the mother] took positive steps to turn her life around in the months prior
to the termination hearing, these steps do not eliminate her past, including her
absence from the lives of the children and her failure to utilize services.”). Like
the juvenile court, we are concerned that the mother is motivated to make
changes in her life only when the child has been removed from her care. While
3
At age eleven she experimented with heroin; at ages fifteen and sixteen she used acid,
ecstasy, cocaine, alcohol and marijuana; at age seventeen she used methamphetamine
together with marijuana and cocaine; and at age eighteen she abused alcohol. Tabatha
claims much of her substance abuse is the result of illegal drug use by her parents.
7
Tabatha has made some recent positive strides, she has a significant history of
relapse and lack of cooperation. We find clear and convincing evidence supports
the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Tabatha’s parental rights under section
232.116(1)(h).
Even when the statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to
terminate parental rights must reflect the child’s best interests. M.S., 519 N.W.2d
at 400. The in-home service provider testified that she has not seen a cycle of
abstinence and relapse by Tabatha. 4 However, this service provider has only
been involved in the case for one year. As noted by the juvenile court, the
service provider “does not have the broader perspective of the nearly two years
of state agency involvement.” The Department supervisor testified that given
Tabatha’s history and that this is Dakota’s third removal she believed termination
of parental rights was in Dakota’s best interest. We agree.
Dakota has been living with her paternal grandparents for the majority of
her life—twenty of twenty-nine months. She is closely bonded to her paternal
grandparents, and they are willing to adopt Dakota. They are also willing to
support a continued relationship between Dakota and her parents provided the
parents are emotionally stable and not using illegal drugs. While Dakota has
been doing very well in her grandparents’ care, the Department reported in June
4
The in-home provider also testified there is an obvious bond between Dakota
and her mother. We recognize that a strong bond between parent and child can
be a special circumstance that militates against termination even when the
statutory grounds have been satisfied. Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). However,
this is not an overriding consideration, but merely a factor to consider. In re N.F.,
579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
8
2007 that Dakota was having difficulty adjusting to visits with her mother. 5
Dakota deserves stability and permanency, which her mother cannot provide. In
re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
“The future can be gleaned from evidence of the parents’ past
performance and motivations.” T.B., 604 N.W.2d at 662 (Iowa 2000). Dakota is
twenty-nine months old and has been removed from her parents’ care on three
occasions because of the parents’ substance abuse. Dakota should not have to
wait any longer for her mother to learn how to become a responsible parent.
L.L., 459 N.W.2d at 495 (Iowa 1990). We agree with the juvenile court’s finding
that termination of Tabatha's parental rights is in the child's best interests.
IV. Conclusion.
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Tabatha’s parental
rights.
AFFIRMED.
5
At the time of the termination hearing, Tabatha, who is twenty-two years old, was living
with her paramour, Bryon, who is thirteen years older than her. She is currently
pregnant with his child. They met several years ago in a bar in which she worked, and
have been in a relationship for the last seven months. The couple has no current plan to
marry. Bryon is divorced and has shared custody of three teenaged-children who live
with him every other week. Although Bryon appears to be a positive influence in
Tabatha’s life, we agree with the juvenile court that “their age difference, complications
of his having three teenage children, and lack of long-term plans for a stable relationship
do not necessarily indicate long-term stability.”
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.
