IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.B., Minor Child, S.B., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-957 / 08-1024
Filed December 17, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.B., Minor Child,
S.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, John D. Lloyd,
Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
William A. Eddy of Eddy Law Firm, Indianola, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Paul M. Goldsmith, County Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph Allwood, Chariton, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child.
She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence. We review her claim de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144,
147 (Iowa 2002).
The mother’s parental rights to her child, born in November 2003, were
terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (i) (2007). We
need only find termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544
N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Termination is appropriate under section
232.116(1)(d) where:
(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in
need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or
sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions
of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a
child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of
assistance after such a finding.
(2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the
parents were offered or received services to correct the
circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance
continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
The mother does not dispute the first element has been proved. Instead, she
contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
circumstances leading to the CINA adjudication remained an issue at the time of
termination.
The child was adjudicated in need of assistance following concerns about
the mother’s ability to provide appropriate care. The mother and child entered
the House of Mercy program, but the mother was later discharged as having
reached maximum benefits from the program, although she had not successfully
3
completed it. At the same time, June 2007, the child was removed from the
mother’s care. The child has remained in foster care since. Although the mother
has received services to teach her how to adequately parent the child, she has
not applied what she has learned. As the court found:
She is still not able to resume parenting of her child. She lacks
insight into her child’s problems and into her own problems as a
parent. She lacks the ability to internalize and apply the skills she
has been taught. While she can point to some successes on her
own part, taking care of her apartment, navigating the bus system,
and acquiring some reading skills, she has taken over two years to
make these modest successes. She still is unable to recognize that
her daughter has developmental delays or what her role in dealing
with those delays might be. She continues to minimize or ignore
the conditions and events that brought her and [the child] to the
attention of the court initially. She has been inconsistent in her use
of her medications and has shown horrible judgment in her
selection of friends and roommates. She has been dishonest with
her service providers.
We adopt these findings as our own and conclude clear and convincing evidence
shows the circumstances leading to the CINA adjudication continued to exist at
the time of the termination hearing.
Because the elements of section 232.116(1)(d) have been proved by clear
and convincing evidence, we affirm.
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.
