IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.M., Minor Child, C.L.M., Mother, Appellant. ________
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-037 / 08-2024
Filed February 19, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.M.,
Minor Child,
C.L.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. REVERSED AND
REMANDED.
Steven J. Holwerda of Holwerda Law Office, Newton, for appellant mother.
Shawn Lane, pro se appellee.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, R. Steven Johnson, County Attorney, and James W. Cleverly
Jr., Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Meegan Keller, Altoona, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Potterfield, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to her child.1 She contends the juvenile court erred in determining clear
and convincing evidence existed in the record to support the termination of her
parental rights. Upon our de novo review, we reverse.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The mother, C.L.M., is herself adjudicated a child in need of assistance
(CINA) due to her parents’ substance abuse problems and C.L.M.’s behavioral
issues. C.L.M. was fourteen years old when she became pregnant. She entered
a program at the House of Mercy that provides assistance to adolescent
pregnant women. While there, she gave birth to a son, K.R.M., in June 2007.
The State filed a CINA petition immediately following K.R.M.’s birth, based upon
his mother’s lack of maturity and the likelihood of imminent harm. K.R.M. was
adjudicated CINA on July 26, 2007. C.L.M. and infant K.R.M. resided together at
House of Mercy for the first four months of K.R.M.’s life.
On October 26, 2007, C.L.M. was dismissed from the House of Mercy
program because she was not complying with program requirements.
She
skipped school and was defiant and angry. The Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) placed C.L.M. in Four Oaks, which has a twelve- to eighteenmonth residential treatment program. Four Oaks does not have a program that
accommodates young parents with their children, nor does it offer parenting
classes or help. C.L.M. was placed there to work on her own trust issues that
resulted from a chaotic family life where she experienced sexual abuse and had
1
The father has not appealed the termination of his parental rights.
3
substance abusing parents. K.R.M. was placed in family foster care near Four
Oaks to facilitate visitation between mother and son.
For the first six months of C.L.M.’s placement at Four Oaks, she continued
to struggle with her own behavior — defiance, lying and impulsivity. During that
time, she was suspended from high school and often did not earn her visits with
K.R.M. However, in April 2008, C.L.M. started to make good progress. Her
attitude and behaviors were positive and she actively participated in her
treatment. C.L.M. attended daily skill groups, individual skill sessions with her
advocate, and weekly therapy with her therapist. C.L.M. managed her anger
better. She interacted with her peers better. She became a leader and a role
model for other residents. She saw K.R.M. regularly and her parenting improved.
C.L.M. worked on building a more positive relationship with her own parents,
especially her mother. She was doing better at school, although she is not a
good test-taker. C.L.M. proudly earned an A in her class in child development,
and developed a good relationship with K.R.M.’s foster mother.
The State filed a petition to terminate her parental rights on September 11,
2008, alleging K.R.M. could not be returned to C.L.M. because “[s]he is not able
to return to her home nor have a child in her care.”
An October 2008 DHS report noted continued progress for C.L.M.: she
met program expectations, earned home visits with her own parents, and visited
K.R.M. on a consistent basis. She attended classes and behaved appropriately.
C.L.M. used coping and anger management skills she had learned.
C.L.M.
continued to attend daily skill groups, individual skill sessions with her advocate,
4
and weekly therapy with her therapist.
C.L.M. would soon be eligible to be
released from Four Oaks.
A termination hearing was held on November 24, 2008. At the hearing,
witnesses testified about C.L.M.’s progress, most noting she was a very different
person than when she entered the Four Oaks program. Edward Beard, C.L.M.’s
social worker, noted that C.L.M. continued to need support and structure. Luis
Antonio Cruz, previously C.L.M.’s youth counselor and advocate (he had
changed employment), acknowledged her progress, but noted that parenting
skills were not taught at Four Oaks. Steven Seuferlein, C.L.M.’s youth counselor
and shift leader at Four Oaks, testified as to the changes he had seen in her
behavior. He recommended a residential facility for C.L.M. that focuses more on
her mothering skills than her own behavior.
C.L.M. presented the testimony of Renae Halder, the program coordinator
at Lighthouse Host Home, a transitional program for pregnant and/or parenting
mothers ages sixteen to twenty-six. Ms. Halder stated the program provides
support to young mothers and offers help with parenting, living skills, gaining
employment, or going back to school. Women did not necessarily have to have
current custody of their children to enter the program, so long as they were
working on gaining custody. Women and their children were allowed to stay in
the program up to two years. Ms. Halder stated that though she had not yet
gone through the formal interview process, C.L.M. met the general eligibility
requirements for the program and that there were currently openings available.
In her own testimony, C.L.M. asked to go to the Lighthouse program with K.R.M.
and to be given a chance to parent him, to work on school, and to get a job.
5
The juvenile court terminated C.L.M.’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (2007) (requiring proof of prior adjudication,
subsequent offer or receipt of services to correct situation, and proof that
circumstances leading to adjudication continue to exist) and 232.116(1)(h) (child
three years or younger, adjudicated CINA, removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parent for at least six months of the last twelve months, and cannot be
returned to parent’s custody).
On appeal, C.L.M. contends DHS placed her in a treatment program that
they knew would take longer than the statutory timetable. She argues that the
program worked as it was intended and now that she is able to work toward
reunification with her child in an appropriate program, it was wrong for the
juvenile court to terminate her rights without allowing her that opportunity.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We review termination of parental rights de novo. In re Z.H., 740 N.W.2d
648, 650-51 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). Grounds for termination must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
“Clear and convincing evidence” means there are no serious or substantial
doubts as to the correctness or conclusions of law drawn from the evidence. In
re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best
interests of the child. J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 798. In evaluating the best interests of
a child, we consider both the immediate and long-term interests. Id. We “afford
a rebuttable presumption that the best interest of a child is served when custody
is with the natural parents.” In re N.M., 491 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Iowa 1992).
6
III. Discussion.
To support termination of a parent’s rights, the court must determine that a
child would suffer harm if returned to the parent’s care.
In re J.R., 478 N.W.2d
409, 412 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991); see In re Chad, 318 N.W.2d 213, 219 (Iowa
1982). That a child would suffer harm by a return to a parent must be shown by
clear and convincing evidence. In re D.P., 465 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Iowa Ct. App.
1990).
The question is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that
K.R.M. could not be returned to C.L.M.’s care at the time of the termination
hearing without being subject to “some harm which would justify the adjudication
of the child as a child in need of assistance.” Iowa Code § 232.102(5)(a)(2).
From our de novo review of the record, we conclude the answer is no.
All agree here that C.L.M. has made great progress.
Testimony was
presented showing that there is a safe placement at Lighthouse for C.L.M. where
she can work toward reunification with her child and continue to receive
treatment and support focusing more on her parenting. Although C.L.M. is not
able to parent K.R.M. independently, she is able to do so in the structured setting
offered by the Lighthouse program. The program allows a mother and her child
to stay up to two years, provides parenting help and instruction, and offers school
and work opportunities. The juvenile court acknowledged C.L.M.’s opportunity to
seek admittance into the Lighthouse program, but did not indicate why or
whether it would not have met the needs of K.R.M.
The parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected.
Quilloin v.
Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S. Ct. 549, 554, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 519 (1978);
7
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 35
(1972). There is a rebuttable presumption that a child’s interests are best served
by leaving the child in the care of the child’s parents. See In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d
489, 494 (Iowa 1990). Our cases have emphasized that in times of need parents
should be encouraged to look for help in caring for their children without risking
loss of custody. In re Guardianship of Sams, 256 N.W.2d 570, 573 (Iowa 1977);
Hulbert v. Hines, 178 N.W.2d 354, 361 (Iowa 1970). It has been said that “[t]he
presumption preferring parental custody is not overcome by a mere showing that
such assistance has been obtained.” Sams, 256 N.W.2d at 573. Even less so
by a showing that such assistance is sought.
We do not find clear and
convincing evidence in the record before us that supports termination under
either statutory ground: the conditions that led to K.R.M.’s adjudication as CINA
do not continue (Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d)); and K.R.M. can in fact be
returned to C.L.M.’s custody in the structured setting of the Lighthouse program
(Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)).
Nor does the evidence rebut the
presumption a child should be with its parent. We recognize C.L.M. continued to
make progress toward case permanency plan goals even after the State filed the
petition for termination. Because we do not find clear and convincing evidence
supports the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, we reverse the
termination of C.L.M.’s parental rights.
C.L.M. also contends termination is not in K.R.M.’s best interests because
they are bonded.
Testimony in this case was K.R.M. has difficulty with
transitions. There was also testimony that the foster family with whom K.R.M.
resides had decided not to adopt him if termination occurred.
Thus, with
8
termination of parental rights, K.R.M. would lose both his mother and his foster
family. We agree with C.L.M. that when there is the opportunity for K.R.M. to be
reunified with his mother at the Lighthouse program, termination is not in his best
interests.
The law requires a “full measure of patience with troubled parents who
attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills.” C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 494. We find
that the juvenile court erred in not considering C.L.M.’s plan to reside at the
Lighthouse program. Not every parent can demonstrate the ability to care for a
child independently. C.L.M. recognized the need for support and developed a
concrete plan for obtaining that support and for keeping K.R.M. safe and
nurtured.
We reverse the order terminating C.L.M.’s parental rights to KRM and
remand to the juvenile court to direct the State to move expeditiously toward
reunification.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Sackett, C.J., concurs specially. Miller, J. dissents.
9
SACKETT, C.J. (concurring specially)
I concur in all respects with the majority’s opinion. I write separately to
express my opinion on two issues. First, this case illustrates that with the right
support and attitude a young parent can overcome his or her deficiencies. Our
refusal to terminate here is important for a number of reasons, including (1) it
recognizes the mother’s progress, (2) it shows other young parents whose child
or children are found to be in need of assistance that if they are willing to make
the effort to improve their lives, their rights will not be terminated, and (3) it shows
support for programs such as the one here that assisted the mother in turning her
life around and becoming a responsible person so that she is ready to parent her
child.
Secondly, though the issue of the father’s rights and responsibilities is not
before us, I am frustrated that in terminating the father’s rights the juvenile court
has released him from any responsibility to support this child. I question whether
terminating his parental rights and his support obligation for the child was prudent
and in the child’s best interests when the issue of the mother’s rights had not
been fully litigated and restoring her rights2 will leave her as the only parent
responsible for the child’s support. See In re K.J.K., 396 N.W.2d 370, 371 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1986). Furthermore, the child appears to be receiving state support.
Therefore, the public interest is also involved. Parents are legally obligated to
support their children and courts should be slow in making children wards of the
state, particularly where, as here, the current foster parents are not interested in
adopting the child, so it is doubtful that even if the juvenile court was or would be
2
I recognize that our decision is still subject to further review.
10
affirmed there would be an adoption in the immediate future. See Anthony v.
Anthony, 204 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Iowa 1973); K.J.K., 396 N.W.2d at 371.
11
MILLER, J. (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent, being convinced the State proved at least one of the
two statutory grounds for termination of C.L.M.’s parental rights and that
termination is in K.R.M.’s best interests.
Because I would affirm the judgment of the juvenile court, I would find it
necessary to discuss one issue raised by C.L.M. but not addressed in the
majority opinion.
C.L.M. claims the juvenile court’s ruling violated her
“substantive due process rights.” She argues that her placement in the Four
Oaks program led her to believe that if she successfully completed the program
while maintaining contact with K.R.M. reunification would occur, but then the
State filed for termination when she was making progress. C.L.M.’s due process
claim does not appear to have been presented to the juvenile court, and clearly
was not passed upon by that court. C.L.M. has not preserved error on this claim
and I would not further address it. See In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa
2003) (“Even issues implicating constitutional rights must be presented to and
ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal.”).
As noted by the juvenile court, according to her own witnesses C.L.M. was
wild, rowdy, and rambunctious as a child. She was placed in the House of Mercy
so she could be taught and learn life skills and parenting skills. She refused to
go to classes, exhibited anger and hostility, defied staff, and was verbally
aggressive to peers. She was discharged from the House of Mercy.
C.L.M. was next placed in Four Oaks. According to her advocate at Four
Oaks, the actual length of time to complete that program is individually based,
the program is designed to be a six-month program, but seven months is the
12
shortest time within which a participant has completed it. During her first six
months in the program, from late October 2007 to the end of April 2008, C.L.M.
made minimal progress. Somewhat incompletely summarized, as found by the
juvenile court, C.L.M.: was defiant and argumentative; would not accept
responsibility for her actions but instead blamed peers, the staff, and others;
acted inappropriately with peers and had poor boundaries with boys; self
mutilated; became angry when confronted; shouted, cursed, threw things, and
ran to her room and slammed the door when angry; was late to classes, skipped
classes, and was suspended from school three times for tardiness, skipping
classes, insubordination, and otherwise inappropriate behavior; required physical
restraint after an episode of assaulting staff members; required physical restraint
again after an episode of assaulting another girl; increased her lying over time;
chose recreation over a scheduled visit with K.R.M.; failed to earn or attend visits
with K.R.M.; and made little effort to develop a relationship with K.R.M.
Beginning about the end of April 2008, C.L.M.’s attitude, behaviors, and
progress improved as recognized by the juvenile court and noted in this court’s
opinion. However, as shown by the evidence and as found by the juvenile court,
although by the time of the termination hearing C.L.M. had “about achieved to the
point she could take care of herself as well as other girls her age [could take care
of themselves],” “she cannot take care of a child; not now, and not reasonably
soon.”
The evidence showed that C.L.M. was not even ready to have
unsupervised visitation with K.R.M.
The juvenile court found that C.L.M. would still need support and structure
to meet her own needs, the addition of needed parental training “would
13
overwhelm her,” and placing K.R.M. with her would place him at risk. It found
that C.L.M. could not yet even take care of herself, let alone provide care for
another person. These findings are fully supported by the record and I readily
agree with them.
C.L.M. was originally placed in the House of Mercy with K.R.M., a
placement that would allow her to deal with her many emotional and behavioral
issues, begin to develop some basic parenting skills, and develop a bond with
K.R.M. She refused to cooperate and was discharged. Although C.L.M. began
to make progress in the months immediately before the termination petition was
filed, she had been defiant and uncooperative and had made essentially no
progress in the first ten months of K.R.M.’s life. Recent positive steps do not
eliminate C.L.M.’s past refusal to utilize offered and available services, and do
not eliminate her self-imposed absence from K.R.M.’s life.
In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000).
Our supreme court has been emphatic that after passage of a period of
removal established by statute a case must be viewed with a sense of urgency.
In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990).
In this case C.L.M. made
essentially no efforts toward reunification until after the six months established by
section 232.116(1)(h)(4) had passed. At the time of the termination hearing she
was not close to being able to accept responsibility for herself, much less
responsibility for K.R.M.
As cogently noted in one of our cases,
We find no provision in the statute purporting to extend the
time interval for teenage parents, and we decline to furnish one.
The Iowa legislature has determined that a child’s rights in this
14
regard are not a function of his or her parent’s age. Termination
should occur if the statutorily prescribed interval has elapsed and
the parent remains unable to care for the [child].
In re M.R., 487 N.W.2d 99, 103 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992).
The only element of what is now Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) in
dispute is its fourth and final element, whether the State proved by clear and
convincing evidence that at the time of the termination hearing K.R.M. could not
be returned to C.L.M. without being exposed to some harm that would cause him
to remain a child in need of assistance. See In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814
(Iowa 1992); In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 277 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). To satisfy
this element, it need not be shown that a child would suffer harm if returned to
the parent; the threat of probable harm will justify termination of parental rights,
and the perceived harm need not be the one that supported the child’s removal
from the home. In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d at 814. As previously noted, in findings
fully supported by the record the juvenile court found that C.L.M. could not yet
take care of herself, much less also care for K.R.M. I would conclude the State
proved by clear and convincing evidence that K.R.M. could not be returned to
C.L.M. without being subject to the threat of neglect that would cause him to
remain a child in need of assistance, and thus proved the grounds for termination
pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).
I would find it unnecessary to determine
whether the State also proved the grounds for termination pursuant to section
232.116(1)(d). See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (“When
the juvenile terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we
need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the
juvenile court to affirm.”).
15
I am also convinced the record shows that termination is in K.R.M.’s best
interests. K.R.M. lived with C.L.M. only the first four months of the seventeen
months he had lived at the time of the termination hearing, and during those four
months his care was closely supervised and to some extent provided by persons
other than C.L.M.
For the next six months C.L.M. was rather sporadic and
inconsistent in her visitations with K.R.M. C.L.M. contends she is bonded with
K.R.M. The weight of the evidence is to the contrary. The DHS worker was
unaware of any bond.
C.L.M.’s Four Oaks advocate opined that C.L.M.’s
relationship with K.R.M. was like that of a babysitter. Termination of C.L.M.’s
parental relationship with K.R.M. would not be detrimental to him because of any
substantial parent-child relationship.
Testimony does show that K.R.M. has difficulty with transitions, and that
his current foster family does not intend to adopt him if termination occurs. He
will thus lose his relationship and bond with his foster family whether C.L.M.’s
parental rights are or are not terminated, and transition from his foster family thus
should not be a factor in determining whether C.L.M.’s parental rights should be
terminated.
K.R.M. has been away from C.L.M. for all but the first four months of his
life. He is in need of stability, security, and permanency, and C.L.M. is not an
option to meet those needs either now or within the reasonably foreseeable
future. I would conclude the State proved termination of C.L.M.’s parental rights
is in K.R.M.’s best interests.
In summary, I would affirm the detailed and well-reasoned findings and
judgments of the juvenile court.
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.