IN THE INTEREST OF C.L.W., Minor Child, P.H.W., Father, Appellant, J.L.G., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-313 / 09-0369
Filed May 29, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF C.L.W.,
Minor Child,
P.H.W., Father,
Appellant,
J.L.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Daniel L. Block,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the order terminating their parental rights
to their daughter. AFFIRMED.
A.J. Flickinger of Craig, Wilson & Flickinger, Independence, for appellant
mother.
James Peters, Independence, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Allan W. Vanderhart, County Attorney, and Karl Moorman,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee, State.
Linnea Nicol, Juvenile Public Defender, Waterloo, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Jessica and Paul separately appeal from the district court’s order
terminating their parental rights to C.L.W. (born July 2008) pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2007). They assert there was not clear and
convincing evidence to support the district court’s finding that reasonable efforts
were offered to achieve reunification. We affirm.
We review termination of parental rights cases de novo. In re J.E., 723
N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). Grounds for termination must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence and our primary concern is the child’s best interests. Id.
C.L.W. was removed from her parents’ care shortly after her birth. She was
adjudicated in need of assistance on October 27, 2008 under section
232.2(6)(c)(2). Jessica has been diagnosed with depressive disorder and antisocial personality disorder, and is unable to show that she has the ability to
parent. She is easily angered, frustrated, and aggressive toward C.L.W., and
has been arrested for domestic assault against Paul.
Paul has also not
demonstrated an ability to care for C.L.W. He has not shown that he is able to
remove himself from Jessica and put C.L.W.’s needs above his own.
Jessica and Paul’s parental rights were terminated to another child, J.W.,
in June 2008. Based on their lack of progress with services offered previously
with J.W., and again after C.L.W.’s removal, an order waiving reasonable efforts
was entered on December 22, 2008 pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.102(12).
At the hearing for waiver of reasonable efforts, the district court took judicial
3
notice of all CINA documents pertaining to J.W.1
In both the order waiving
reasonable efforts and the termination order, the court found that services had
been consistently provided since September 2007, including therapy and skill
development, supervised visitation, outpatient mental health services, parentchild evaluation, relative home placement, individual counseling, and couple’s
counseling.
Despite this, the district court found that concerns preventing
reunification still existed, stating, “[the parents] have not utilized the services
offered or been able to demonstrate that they are capable of meeting the needs
for the child.”
Although both Jessica and Paul assert that the State has not made
reasonable efforts to achieve family reunification, we agree with the district court
that “despite numerous services being offered to the parents, most of the
concerns which led to the child’s removal continue to exist.”
Because of
problems that occurred during joint visitations with C.L.W., Paul argues that he
was entitled to couple’s counseling with Jessica during those visitations.
However, due to their continued fighting and inability to make progress in
couple’s counseling outside of visitations, the court found that engaging in
couple’s counseling during visitations with C.L.W. would not improve the
situation. Visits never progressed past supervised.
1
Jessica also argues that during the hearing for waiver of reasonable efforts, the court
erred in considering evidence from the prior termination. We find no error as evidence of
past behavior, including receipt of services and lack of compliance or progress may be
received in a subsequent action regarding another child. In re Adkins, 298 N.W.2d 273,
277-78 (Iowa 1980) (stating that it is permissible for the trial court in a termination
proceeding to judicially notice the prior CINA case, including the evidence).
4
To determine what is in the best interests of the child, evidence of the
parents’ past performance is the best indicator of the quality of future care for the
child.
In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992).
There is clear and
convincing evidence that substantial progress has not been made due to the
parents’ lack of compliance with the services offered. C.L.W. is in need of a safe
and permanent home, and has done well in relative placement. J.E., 723 N.W.2d
at 801 (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating children’s safety and their need for
a permanent home are the defining elements in determining a child’s best
interests). Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district
court that it is in C.L.W.’s best interests that the parental rights of Jessica and
Paul are terminated.
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.
