IN THE INTEREST OF S.S. and M.S., Minor Children, L.B., Father, Appellant, A.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-255 / 09-0287
Filed May 29, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF S.S. and M.S.,
Minor Children,
L.B., Father,
Appellant,
A.S., Mother,
Appellant.
______________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Michael R.
Stewart, District Associate Judge.
A mother and father each appeal a juvenile court order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Jane Odland of Walker & Billingsley, Newton, for appellant mother.
Dennis E. McKelvie of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, for appellant father
of S.S.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael W. Mahaffey, County Attorney, and Rebecca L. Petig,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Michael Fisher of Fisher Law Office, Oskaloosa, guardian ad litem for
minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Mansfield, JJ.
2
PER CURIAM
I.
Background Facts
Amanda is the mother of Starlene, born in 2003, and Madison, born in
2006. Lawrence is the father of Starlene, and Jeremy is the father of Madison. 1
Starlene was removed from the mother’s care in May 2005 due to drug use in the
home. A hair sample of the child was positive for methamphetamine. Starlene
was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code
section 232.2(6)(n) (2005).
After Amanda completed a residential substance abuse treatment
program, Starlene was returned to her care in April 2006. Starlene was removed
a second time in August 2006 due to the mother’s continuing drug use. Madison
was born in December 2006. Amanda had a period of sobriety, and Starlene
was returned to the mother’s care in February 2007.
In June 2007, Amanda tested positive for illegal drugs. The children were
removed and placed in foster care.
sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2007).
Madison was adjudicated CINA under
Amanda participated in services, but
continued to demonstrate instability. In June 2008 Amanda was hospitalized for
a drug overdose, and shortly thereafter was arrested for public intoxication.
Amanda decided to voluntarily terminate her parental rights. She signed
releases of custody of the children. Throughout the juvenile court proceedings,
neither father participated in services.
Jeremy’s whereabouts were unknown at the time of the termination proceedings. He
has not appealed the termination of his parental rights.
1
3
The State filed a petition for termination of the parents’ rights on
December 17, 2008. At the time of the termination hearing in February 2009,
Amanda was incarcerated for probation violations. Lawrence, a registered sex
offender, was also incarcerated.
The juvenile court terminated Amanda’s
parental rights to Starlene under sections 232.116(1)(a) and (f).
Lawrence’s
parental rights were terminated under section 232.116(1)(f). Amanda’s parental
rights to Madison were terminated under sections 232.116(1)(a) and (h). The
parental rights of Jeremy were also terminated.
The court determined
termination was in the best interests of the children. Amanda and Lawrence
appeal the termination of their parental rights.
II.
Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698
N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence. In re T.P., 757 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa Ct. App.
2008). Evidence is clear and convincing when it leaves no serious or substantial
doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from it. In re D.D., 653
N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). Our primary concern is the best interests of the
children. In re A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
III.
Amanda
A.
Amanda claims termination of her parental rights is not in the
children’s best interests. She states that the juvenile court ordered a home study
of the maternal grandfather, and asserts that because the children could possibly
be placed with a relative, the court improperly terminated her parental rights.
4
Amanda claims she should be able to resume care of the children once she is
released from prison.
On our de novo review of the record, we find termination of Amanda’s
parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Amanda continues to struggle
with substance abuse and with stability in her life. The children should not be
forced to wait for permanency. We agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion that
termination was in the best interests of the children “giving primary consideration
to the children’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term
nurturing growth of the children, and to the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the children.”
B.
Amanda also claims “her consent to termination was affected by
medication that she took at the insistence of her probation officer.” Amanda did
not testify at the termination hearing, and no evidence on this issue was offered.
Furthermore, in addition to consensual termination of parental rights under
section 232.116(1)(a), her parental rights were terminated under sections
232.116(1)(f) (Starlene) and (h) (Madison).
Amanda has not appealed the
termination of her parental rights under these code sections, and we may affirm
on these grounds. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (2009) (“Failure to cite
authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”).
IV.
Lawrence
Lawrence contends that termination of his parental right is not in the best
interests of Starlene. He asserts that the child could be placed with the paternal
grandmother until he is released from prison.
5
We first note that this issue was not raised before the juvenile court, and
we conclude it has not been preserved for our review. See In re N.W.E., 564
N.W.2d 451, 455 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (noting an issue that was not raised
before the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal).
Additionally, Lawrence did not participate in services, or give any indication he
was interested in assuming care of his child during the CINA proceedings. It
would not be in Starlene’s best interests to wait any longer for Lawrence to be in
a position where he might be able to care for her. We conclude termination of
Lawrence’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
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.
