IN THE INTEREST OF M.W. and M.P., Minor Children, T.M.W., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-1025 / 09-1585
Filed December 30, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF M.W. and M.P.,
Minor Children,
T.M.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, James A.
McGlynn, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Sarah L. Smith of Bennett, Crimmins & Smith, Fort Dodge, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Ricki Osborn, County Attorney, and Jennifer Bonzer, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Marcy Lundberg, Fort Dodge, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Potterfield, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children.
She contends the State failed to prove the statutory grounds alleged as the basis
for termination by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the juvenile court’s
order.
M.W. was born in October 2006 and was adjudicated a child in need of
assistance (CINA) in February 2007. M.P. was born in October 2008 and was
adjudicated a CINA in February 2009. The children were removed from their
mother’s care on January 20, 2009,1 and have not been returned to her.
The mother admits that she has mental health issues, as well as chronic
substance
abuse
problems
involving
alcohol,
marijuana,
and
methamphetamines. The juvenile court issued a detailed decision chronicling the
history of this case, the services provided, and the inability of the mother to
parent her children due to her on-going chronic substance abuse and failure to
maintain employment or housing.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights based upon
Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) (2009) (child adjudicated a child in need of
assistance (CINA), removed from parent’s physical custody for at least six
months, and parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact and
made no reasonable efforts to resume care despite being given the opportunity
1
The older child was removed from the mother’s care in December 2006 after a hair stat
test indicated the presence of cocaine in the child’s system. The child was returned to
her mother’s care from September 2008 to January 2009 for a trial home visit; the
mother was then in a halfway program that allowed children. The children were
removed from her custody in January 2009 after the mother was unsuccessfully
discharged from the halfway program and a subsequent drug test indicated the presence
of methamphetamine in the mother’s system.
3
to do so); 232.116(1)(h) (child three years of age or younger, adjudicated CINA,
removed from parent’s custody for at least six of last twelve months, and cannot
be returned to parent’s custody at this time); 232.116(1)(l) (child adjudicated
CINA, parent has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem and presents a
danger to self or others, and child will not be able to be returned in a reasonable
period of time).
Appellate review of parent-child termination proceedings is de novo. In re
C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
Our primary concern is the best
interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2002).
We find the mother’s parental rights were properly terminated under
section 232.116(1)(h).
The children have been removed from their mother’s
custody because of her substance abuse since January 2009. The mother has
been provided services to address her substance abuse; she has entered
several substance abuse treatment programs, but has been unable to maintain
sobriety, employment, or appropriate housing for any significant period of time.
She is unable to resume care of her children at this time. Given the mother’s
past performance, we are not convinced additional time or services will change
her. See In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000) (“The future can be
gleaned from evidence of the parents’ past performance and motivations.”); In re
L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 1990) (noting that evidence of parent’s past
performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care that the parent is
capable of providing).
Because we have found the statutory grounds for termination under Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(h), we need not address the remaining grounds relied
4
upon by the juvenile court. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996)
(holding that where the court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we only need to find grounds to terminate under one statutory
provision in order to affirm).
The two children have different fathers. The father of the older child lives
in another state. He is in the military and had been deployed overseas, but is
now able and willing to care for the child.
The father of the younger child
voluntarily terminated his parental rights. While both children are currently living
with the same foster family, the court has ordered that the older child be returned
to the father as soon as possible, and the younger is to be considered for
adoption.2 We acknowledge the juvenile court’s ruling will likely separate these
two children. However, both the father for the older child and the pre-adoptive
foster family for the younger child expressed the willingness and desire to keep
the children in contact with one another. Under the circumstances presented
here, where the children are young and both have good homes awaiting them,
we conclude the juvenile court’s ruling to be in their best interests.
From our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the juvenile court
correctly determined that termination was in the children’s best interests. We
agree with the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2
The foster family is interested in and willing to adopt both children.
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.
