IN THE INTEREST OF J.L., D.L., O. L ., and M.L., Minor Children, V.S.C., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-901 / 08-1463
Filed November 13, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF J.L., D.L., O.L., and M.L.,
Minor Children,
V.S.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights. AFFIRMED.
Victoria Meade, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Wayne Reisetter, County Attorney, and Sean Weiser,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
DuWayne Dalen, Perry, for father.
Steve Clarke, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
A mother appeals from an August 26, 2008 juvenile court order
terminating her parental rights to fourteen-year-old J.L., ten-year-old D.L., eightyear-old O.L., and six-year-old M.L. („the children”).1 She claims that termination
of her parental rights is not in the children‟s best interest.
We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we
are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court‟s findings of
fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. The
primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of
the child. To support the termination of parental rights, the State
must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section
232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).
The children were removed from their parents in early February 2005, and
in April 2005 were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA), based on
their parents‟ substance abuse and resulting lack of supervision. J.L. was briefly
in shelter care, was in a psychiatric medical institution for children, and since
February 2008 has been placed with a great aunt and uncle.
M.L. was returned to her parents in June 2006, and D.L. and O.L. were
returned to them in September 2006. The CINA case as to these three children
was closed in December 2006.
D.L., O.L., and M.L. were again removed from their parents in May 2007,
and were adjudicated CINA in July 2007. The adjudications were again because
1
The order also terminated the parental rights of the putative father of the four children,
to whom the mother has never been married. The record suggests no question as to the
paternity of J.L., D.L., and M.L. We note that during the termination of parental rights
hearing the mother asserted, apparently for the first time during any hearing or formal
proceeding involving the children, that the father of O.L. was someone other than the
father of the other three children.
3
of substance abuse and lack of supervision. The three have thereafter remained
in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), with D.L. and
O.L. together in a family foster home and M.L. placed with a great aunt and uncle
other than the great aunt and uncle with whom J.L. has been placed.
The children suffer from hyperactivity and post-traumatic stress disorder,
among other things. All have been involved in therapy.
The three younger
children have been in therapy near the mother‟s place of residence. Despite
invitations and requests that she do so, the mother has not attended or
participated in their therapy.
Since early in the current CINA proceeding involving the three younger
children the case permanency plans have required the mother, who has serious,
ongoing substance abuse and mental health issues, to participate in substance
abuse evaluation and treatment and individual therapy. She did not begin to
participate in recommended treatment or therapy until the last two days before
the termination hearing.
J.L. has been removed from his parents for about three and one-half
years. He wishes to be adopted by the great aunt and uncle with whom he has
been placed and residing since early February 2008. They are willing and eager
to adopt him. The mother candidly acknowledges that J.L. “is in the best place
for him now.”
D.L. and O.L. have been removed from their parents for fourteen months,
and have been in family foster care together. Their therapists recommend that
they stay together. They have been to respite sessions in the home of a pre-
4
adoptive foster family. D.L. and O.L. appear to like the home and family, and the
family would take them immediately if allowed to do so.
M.L. has been removed from her parents for fourteen months, during
which time she has been in the pre-adoptive foster family home of her great aunt
and uncle. She worries before and after visits with her mother and does not want
to go to the visits. Shortly before the termination hearing M.L. defecated in her
pants before and after a visit with her mother. M.L. is closely bonded with her
great aunt and uncle, whom she identifies as her parents. They are willing to and
wish to adopt her.
Numerous services have been provided and offered to the family since
February 2005. As of a May 6, 2008 family team meeting all service providers
agreed the children needed permanency and all recommended termination of
parental rights. In the opinion of the DHS social worker who has worked with the
family since February 2005, the children could not be returned to the mother at
the present time or within the next six months. The social worker opined that the
children all needed permanency, and recommended termination of parental
rights in order that the children could be adopted. The guardian ad litem for the
children expressed the same opinion and recommendation.
The children are all six years of age or older, and thus recognize their
mother as their mother. They are all bonded to her. However, they all suffer
from stress and anxiety because of their past home life and uncertainty and lack
of permanency, and they all desire permanency. The mother is unable to provide
permanency for them, either now or within any reasonably foreseeable period of
5
time. The children need and deserve the security, stability, and permanency that
can only be acquired if the mother‟s parental rights are terminated.
We
conclude, as the juvenile court did, that termination of the mother‟s parental
rights is in the children‟s best interest.
We affirm the juvenile court‟s August 26, 2008 order.
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.
