IN THE INTEREST OF T.B., I.B., AND R.B., Minor Children, D.B. AND J.B., Parents, Appellants.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-855 / 08-1378
Filed October 29, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF T.B., I.B., AND R.B.,
Minor Children,
D.B. AND J.B., Parents,
Appellants.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her three children. AFFIRMED.
Joanie L. Grife of Bennett, Steffens & Grife, P.C., Marshalltown, for
appellant mother.
Meegan Keller, Altoona, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney, and James Cleverley,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Maria Ruhtenberg of Whitfield & Eddy, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Jamie appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental rights
to T.B. (born January 2001), I.B. (born October 2003), and R.B. (born December
2005) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), (h) and (i), (2007).1
She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that Jamie’s
arguments are without merit and termination is clearly in the children’s best
interests. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006) (de novo review).
The district court had before it a wealth of information supporting termination. In
1999, Jamie’s rights to a son were terminated. In 2002, the Iowa Department of
Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family. Although Jamie was
offered numerous services over the years, she was unable to learn basic
parenting skills that would allow her to provide routine care and protect the safety
of her children. Between March 2003 and April 2008, there were nine founded
child abuse reports for failure to provide adequate shelter and supervision.
During this time the children were removed from Jamie’s home three times and
were out of her care for over two years. In March 2008, I.B.’s therapist reported
that Jamie had continually failed to meet adequately the needs of the children
and stated: “There is a chronic, repeated, gross failure to meet the emotional
and physical needs of the children. This is clearly evidenced in the six-year
history of DHS involvement with this family.” A DHS social worker also testified
that Jamie had not progressed in her ability to provide a safe environment.
1
The district court also terminated the father’s parental rights. His rights are not at issue
in this appeal.
3
Furthermore, we find that termination is in the children’s best interests.
Each time the children were removed, they were placed with the same foster
family, who is willing to adopt them. A DHS social worker testified that it was in
the children’s best interests to allow them to remain in their foster home where
they are “protected and safe and their needs will be consistently met.” The
children have done well in foster care and are in need of permanent placement.
See J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 801 (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating children’s
safety and their need for a permanent home are the defining elements in
determining a child’s best interests). Thus, we affirm the district court.
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.
