IN THE INTEREST OF T.M. AND T.T., Minor Children, J.M., Mother, Appellant, T.T.T., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-889 / 07-1772
Filed December 12, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF T.M. AND T.T.,
Minor Children,
J.M., Mother,
Appellant,
T.T.T., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joe E. Smith, District
Associate Judge.
J.M. appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
John Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Nichole Mordini of Benzoni Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant father.
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.
Kimberly Ayotte of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
J.M. appeals the termination of her parental rights to T.M., born in 2004,
and T.T., born in 2005. 1 She contends (1) the record lacks clear and convincing
evidence to support termination under the grounds cited by the district court and
(2) termination was not in the children’s best interests.
I.
We may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to support any of
the grounds cited by the district court. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1999). One of those grounds was Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2007)
(requiring proof of several elements including proof that children could not be
returned to parent’s custody).
On our de novo review, we find the requisite
quantum of evidence to support termination under this ground.
The children were removed from J.M.’s care based on her marijuana use.
They were later returned to her care but were again removed after J.M. tested
positive for marijuana in her system. At the termination hearing, J.M. admitted to
using marijuana the week before the termination hearing and stated she had
been using “[l]ike every two days” since the children’s second removal in March
2007. She conceded she did not participate in substance abuse treatment, did
not undergo random drug testing, and did not visit her children in the two months
preceding the hearing.
When asked if she was in a position to immediately
assume care and custody of her children, she answered, “No.” When asked
when she believed she would be in a position to assume custody she answered,
“Six months to a year.” These admissions established the key element of section
232.116(1)(h).
1
The father of T.T. filed a notice of appeal, but it was dismissed as untimely.
3
II.
The ultimate consideration in termination proceedings is the best interests
of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). J.M. had the
opportunity to reunite with her children. She squandered that opportunity by
resuming her illegal drug use. Additionally, after the children were removed from
her care for a second time, she declined to maintain a relationship with them
through visitation.
For these reasons, we agree with the juvenile court that
termination of J.M.’s parental rights to T.M. and T.T. was in their best interests.
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.
