IN THE INTEREST OF D.B. and T.B., Minor Children, D.R.B., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-167 / 08-0085
Filed March 14, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF D.B. and T.B.,
Minor Children,
D.R.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Thomas Viner of Hallberg, Jacobsen, Johnson & Viner, P.L.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Edward Crowell, Mt. Vernon, for appellee father.
Cory Speth, Cedar Rapids, for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Denise appeals the termination of her parental rights to D.B., born in 1997,
and T.B., born in 2000. She contends (1) “the court erroneously concluded that
the State proved that the children cannot be returned to the custody of the
children’s parents,” (2) “the court erroneously concluded that the State proved
that the parents have not maintained significant contact with the children during
the previous six months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of
the children despite being given opportunity to do so,” and (3) “the State did not
prove that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate [her] parental
rights.”
As a preliminary matter, we note that the juvenile court only terminated
Denise’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f) (requiring proof of
several elements including proof children could not be returned to parent’s
custody). To the extent Denise raises other statutory grounds for termination,
those grounds will not be addressed, as they were not a basis for termination.
On our de novo review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court that
the children could not be returned to Denise’s custody. Denise struggled with an
addiction to crack cocaine. In 2006, the Department of Human Services sought
to have the children temporarily removed from Denise’s care based on tests that
indicated D.B. was exposed to cocaine. 1 The juvenile court granted the request.
Following the children’s removal, Denise complied with some of the
Department’s expectations but not others.
On the one hand, she exercised
supervised visitation with the children fairly regularly and exhibited good
1
An older child who is not the subject of this appeal was also exposed to cocaine.
3
parenting skills during the visits. On the other, she did not comply with protocols
for substance abuse treatment and testing. For example, a Department social
worker testified that Denise was unsuccessfully discharged from a treatment
program in May 2007, tested positive for cocaine in May and August 2007, and
missed several drug tests.
Denise also missed the termination hearing, after requesting and obtaining
a postponement of the originally scheduled date. At the hearing, a Department
social worker testified “Denise has not shown that she’s able to care for . . . any
of the . . . children on a full-time basis.” Although she conceded Denise looked
and sounded better in the recent past and her house was clean, she stated the
main concern remained her drug abuse.
A family therapist who supervised
visitation seconded this opinion. She noted that Denise’s visits with the children
were “still fully supervised.” Based on this testimony, we agree with the juvenile
court that the children could not be returned to Denise’s custody.
We also agree with the court that termination was in the children’s best
interests. Ten-year-old D.B. was doing well in foster care and her grandmother
was taking steps to adopt her. T.B. was in a psychiatric medical inpatient care
facility based on “several behavioral/mental health diagnos[e]s.” He was
expected to remain there for some time. While both children shared a bond with
their mother, she was simply not in a position to assume their care. As the
juvenile court stated, “the future of these children cannot be pinned to nothing
more than wishful thinking.”
We affirm the termination of Denise’s parental rights to D.B. and T.B.
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.
