IN THE INTEREST OF K.S., Minor Child, S.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-256 / 09-0291
Filed April 22, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF K.S.,
Minor Child,
S.S., Mother,
Appellant.
_____________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Robin Miller, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold L. Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly J. Kaufman,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
David Nadler, Cedar Rapids, for the father.
Cynthia S. Finley, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
PER CURIAM
Samantha and Darrian are the parents of Kai, born in 2005.1 Samantha
has a history of substance abuse. In August 2007, Samantha allowed a family
friend, Jamie, to care for Kai. Samantha was homeless and unemployed. In
February 2008, the State formally removed Kai from Samantha’s care and placed
him in the physical care of Jamie. Kai was adjudicated to be a child in need of
assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(g) (2007).
Samantha was very inconsistent in participating in services. She did not
avail herself of all visitation opportunities. She did not always comply with drug
testing.
A psychological evaluation recommended counseling, but Samantha
never initiated counseling.
Samantha often missed appointments with social
workers. For services Samantha did attend, she was not always cooperative.
On November 10, 2008, the State filed a petition seeking termination of
the parents’ rights. Later that month Samantha had a drug test that was positive
for cocaine. She had only one visit with Kai between November 20, 2008, and
the date of the termination hearing, on February 3, 2009.
The juvenile court terminated Samantha’s parental rights under sections
232.116(1)(e) and (h). The court found:
Kai’s parents have been unable to provide for his basic needs.
Neither parent has demonstrated the ability or the commitment to
assuring that Kai has adequate food, clothing, shelter or that his
physical and emotional needs are met. . . . Kai needs permanency
and security and his parents cannot provide that for him, either now
or in the foreseeable future. The Court finds, therefore, that
termination of parental rights and placement in an adoptive home is
in the best interests of this child.
1
Darrian has had little contact with the child throughout his life, and is not a party to this
appeal.
3
Samantha filed a motion for a new trial, and this request was denied by the
juvenile court. She appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights.
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).
Samantha contends the State did not present sufficient evidence to
terminate her parental rights under either section 232.116(1)(e) or (h). “When
the juvenile court 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.” In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
On our de novo review of the record, we find there is clear and convincing
evidence to terminate Samantha’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).
Kai was three years old. He had been adjudicated CINA because his parent
failed to provide adequate food, clothing, or shelter. He had been removed from
his home for almost a year at the time of the termination hearing. Furthermore,
Kai could not be safely returned to Samantha’s care. She had a positive drug
test just a few months before the termination hearing. She was again homeless
and unemployed. Also, she did not consistently participate in available services.
4
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court terminating Samantha’s
parental rights.
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.
