IN THE INTEREST OF R.M., Minor Child, A.A.M., Father, Appellant, A.M.L., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-390 / 08-0608
Filed June 11, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF R.M.,
Minor Child,
A.A.M., Father,
Appellant,
A.M.L., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father and mother appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Ryan Mitchell of Orsborn, Milani & Mitchell, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellant
father.
Mary Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Mark Trammel, County Attorney, and Seth Harrington,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Samuel Erhardt, Ottumwa, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
A father and mother appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights to their child. We affirm on both appeals.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Angelea is the mother and Aidan is the father of Reyslynn, born in
September 2005.
Reyslynn came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (Department) in January 2006 after a report that the child had been
exposed to illegal drugs.
methamphetamine.
Angelea and Aidan both admitted to using
Shortly after Reyslynn tested positive for exposure to
methamphetamine and marijuana, she was removed from her parents’ care and
placed in foster care.
In February 2006 Angelea began to participate in outpatient substance
abuse treatment; however, she was subsequently unsuccessfully discharged
from her treatment program. On March 9, 2006, Reyslynn was adjudicated a
child in need of assistance (CINA) and ordered to remain in foster care.
On March 9, Aidan and Angelea were both charged with arson arising out
of allegations that they had participated in burning down an historic church.
Angelea, who was then fifteen years old, was placed in detention, and Aidan was
placed in jail. Subsequently, Aidan and Angelea pled guilty to arson charges.
Aidan received a suspended ten-year sentence, and he was ordered to
reside at the Ottumwa Residential Facility as a condition of his probation. While
residing at that facility, Aidan violated the conditions of his probation by using
3
illegal drugs. Aidan’s probation was revoked in January 2007, and he was sent
to prison. His earliest possible release date is in June 2009.
As part of Angelea’s delinquency case, she was ordered to participate in a
group care program at the House of Mercy where she was allowed to have
Reyslynn live with her. Unfortunately, Angelea elected to leave that program in
October 2006. As a result, she was unsuccessfully discharged from the House
of Mercy, and her daughter was returned to foster care. Reyslynn has been out
of her mother’s care ever since.
Angelea spent a short time in detention after leaving the House of Mercy.
She was then placed in another group care program. She was successfully
discharged from that program in April 2007. Upon her discharge, Angelea was
placed in her mother’s custody.
Initially, Angelea participated in skill
development, substance abuse treatment, and visits with Reyslynn. However, on
October 2, 2007, Angelea ran away from her mother’s home, which resulted in
her being unable to participate in services and visits with her daughter.
On October 25 Angelea was arrested on a warrant and again placed in
detention. At the time of her arrest, she tested positive for amphetamine and
methamphetamine. In late November 2007, Angelea was placed in a substance
abuse treatment program, where she participated in services and resumed visits
with Reyslynn.
The State filed a petition to terminate Angelea’s and Aidan’s parental
rights on December 19, 2007. The juvenile court held a contested termination
hearing on February 18, 2008. At the hearing, the family’s social worker stated
there were continuing concerns about Angelea’s ability to remain drug-free
4
outside of a substance abuse program.
She testified she did not believe
Reyslynn could be returned to either parent’s care. The child’s guardian ad litem
agreed with the social worker’s conclusion that it was in Reyslynn’s best interests
to terminate Angelea’s and Aidan’s parental rights.
In an order filed April 1, 2008, the juvenile court terminated Angelea’s and
Aidan’s parental rights to Reyslynn pursuant to Iowa Code section 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). Angelea and Aidan have
appealed separately.
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).
III. Discussion.
In this appeal, Aidan and Angelea contend the grounds for termination
were not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
They also maintain
termination is not in the best interests of their child. Upon our review of the
record, we find no merit in the parents’ arguments.
5
A. Grounds for Termination.
Aidan and Angelea both contend the court erred in terminating their
parental rights because they have cooperated with services and should be given
additional time to participate in reunification services. Angelea further contends
the court erred in terminating her parental rights because the State failed to show
that Reyslynn could not be returned to her care. For the reasons that follow, we
disagree.
Aidan has been in jail, a halfway house, or prison since Reyslynn’s March
2006 CINA adjudication. He was sent to prison after he violated his probation by
using drugs. Aidan testified the earliest possible date he could be released from
prison would be in June 2009. Although Aidan initially did well while participating
in services and visits with Reyslynn, his subsequent actions resulted in his
unavailability as a parent. Aidan cannot fault the Department for being unable to
provide additional services when his own actions prevented him from taking
advantage of services. In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 692 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).
Despite receiving extensive services, Angelea has continued to struggle
with drug abuse. In October 2007 she ran away from her home and used drugs
again.
Following her arrest, she tested positive for amphetamine and
methamphetamine.
Although she was about to graduate from inpatient
substance abuse treatment at the time of the termination hearing, serious
concerns still remain regarding her ability to remain drug-free outside of
treatment.
Simply put, both Angelea and Aidan have continued to make choices that
make reunification with their daughter impossible. Neither parent is in a position
6
to provide a safe and stable home for Reyslynn now or in the near future. We
find clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision to
terminate Aidan’s and Angelea’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).
B. Best Interests.
At the time of the termination hearing, Reyslynn was two years old and
had been out of her parents’ care for more than half of her life. Reyslynn has
bonded with her foster family and is thriving under their care. Her foster parents
have expressed their desire to adopt Reyslynn.
Aidan and Angelea have previously been given two extensions of time to
work toward reunification with Reyslynn, one on April 10, 2007, and another on
July 13, 2007. The parents have been provided with extensive services since the
inception of this case; however, these services have proved unsuccessful. The
evidence does not support the conclusion that additional time would allow
Reyslynn to be returned to either parent’s care.
When parents are incapable of changing to allow a child to return home,
termination is necessary. In re T.T., 541 N.W.2d 552, 557 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
Reyslynn deserves stability and permanency, which her parents cannot provide.
In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
We agree with the
juvenile court’s finding that termination of Aidan’s and Angelea’s parental rights is
in the child’s best interests.
IV. Conclusion.
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Aidan’s and Angelea's
parental rights.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
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.
