IN THE INTEREST OF H.G., Minor Child, A.G., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-953 / 08-1601
Filed December 17, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF H.G.,
Minor Child,
A.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J.
Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her son. AFFIRMED.
Steven Drahozal, Dubuque, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and Jean Becker, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Mary Kelley, Assistant Public Defender, Dubuque, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Angelica appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental
rights to H.G.1 (born May 2003). She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
and the sufficiency of the services. We affirm.
We review termination of parental rights cases de novo. In re J.E., 723
N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). Grounds for termination must be proven by clear
and convincing evidence and our primary concern is the child’s best interests. Id.
H.G. came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in
2005 upon Angelica’s admittance to the hospital for hallucinations and
depression. This incident followed a pattern of difficult occurrences in Angelica’s
life. She came to the United States as an illegal immigrant and worked in a role
that could be closely described as an indentured servant, or what professionals
working with Angelica called “economic slavery.” Her mental health has been an
ongoing struggle.
She was diagnosed with major depression recurrent with
psychotic features and posttraumatic stress.
Upon Angelica’s admittance to the hospital, suspicious burns were
observed on H.G.’s hands, which led to an investigation resulting in a founded
child abuse report for denial of critical care for failure to supervise. On April 27,
2005, H.G. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to
232.2(6)(n), and placed in foster care. Thereafter, Angelica was able to make
progress with her parenting skills, gain employment, and utilize a support system,
which allowed H.G. to be returned to her care and the CINA case to be closed.
1
H.G.’s father’s parental rights were also terminated, but are not at issue in this appeal.
3
H.G. again came to the attention of DHS in July 2007, when Angelica’s
mental health became a challenge and she was again hospitalized. H.G. was
placed in foster care where he remained through termination.
Angelica was
offered numerous services: family, safety, risk, and permanency services; mental
health treatment; immigration outreach; language skills; and counseling services.
She was also assisted in finding places to live, including the Teresa Shelter,
Maria House, and Manessah House.
However, her participation was
inconsistent and sporadic. In July 2008, the district court terminated Angelica’s
parental rights to H.G. pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f).
Under 232.116(1)(f), a parent’s rights may be terminated if the court finds
by clear and convincing evidence (1) the child is four years or older, (2) the child
has been adjudicated in need of assistance, (3) the child has been removed from
the home for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, and (4) the child cannot
be returned home at the present time.
The first three elements are not in
dispute; the only question is whether H.G. could have been returned to
Angelica’s care at the time of the termination hearing.
Angelica claims that there was not clear and convincing evidence that
H.G. could not be returned to her care.2 Although Angelica was diagnosed with
serious mental health issues, she resisted taking her medication and failed to
address these ongoing issues. Case workers testified that although she has
shown improvement in her language skills, there continue to be barriers to
2
Angelica also claims that due to her illegal immigrant status, she was not able to work,
and reasonable efforts were not made to remedy that situation. She did not preserve
error on this issue, but even if she had, the record refutes her assertions. DHS records
were adequate in detailing the amount of services she received, including translation
services.
4
reunification, as she is “barely able to care for herself, making appointments,
financially, and following through. It would be difficult for [H.G.] to live with this
kind of instability.” Aside from her ongoing mental health challenges, Angelica
does not have a stable environment to offer H.G. Unfortunately, she has made
very little progress with the many services offered to her, and her visits with H.G.
have not progressed past supervised. To the contrary, her visits have been
reduced in length, and she has never requested additional time.
Angelica asserts that she has recovered from depression with psychotic
symptoms, and that her mental health issues were caused by or contributed to by
her thyroid condition. While she has made efforts to improve, we agree with
DHS and the district court that her mental health issues remain a major concern
to H.G.’s safety. H.G. has been out of Angelica’s care since July 2007. See In
re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“At some point, the rights
and needs of the [child] rise above the rights and needs of the parents.”). He is
in need of a safe and permanent home. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa
2006) (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).
He has done well in foster care, where his foster parents have
attended to his special needs: including speech therapy, dental, and eye care.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that
termination of Angelica’s parental rights to H.G. was proved by clear and
convincing evidence and in his 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.
