IN THE INTEREST OF I.M.J., M.B.J., and T.R.W., Minor Children, K.B.J., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-360 / 09-0234
Filed May 29, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF I.M.J., M.B.J., and T.R.W.,
Minor Children,
K.B.J., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Sylvia A. Lewis,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to three
children. AFFIRMED.
Sue E. Kirk of Honohan, Epley, Braddock & Brenneman, Iowa City, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathryn S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Janet Lyness, County Attorney, and Kristin Parks, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Noelle Murray, Coralville, for father.
L. Jay Stein of Stein, Moore, Egerton & Weideman, L.L.P., guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Katti, the mother of Isis, Matthew, and Trinity, appeals from the juvenile
court order terminating her parental rights to all three children.1 She contends
there is not clear and convincing evidence that the offer or receipt of services
would not correct the conditions that led to the removal within a reasonable
amount of time and the court should have declined to order termination after
finding that a strong bond existed between her and the children. We affirm.
Scope
of
Review.
Our
review
of
termination-of-parental-rights
proceedings is de novo. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). We
review the facts and the law and adjudicate rights anew. In re H.G., 601 N.W.2d
84, 85 (Iowa 1999). We give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings but are
not bound by them. In re E.H., III, 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998).
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);
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 35
(1972). When the juvenile court terminates a parent’s rights, we affirm if clear
and convincing evidence supports the termination under the cited statutory
provision. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The State has
the burden of proving the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. “Clear
and convincing evidence” is evidence leaving “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) (quoting Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa Ct.
1
The father does not appeal the termination of his parental rights.
3
App. 1983)). If the juvenile court terminates parental rights on multiple statutory
grounds, we may affirm if any ground is supported by clear and convincing
evidence. See In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
Background. Isis was born in May of 2005. Matthew was born in April of
2007. They were removed from Katti’s care in June of 2007 after the father
assaulted her in late May, resulting in bruises and three cracked ribs. The court
placed the children with their maternal grandparents. In July, the court found the
children were in need of assistance. In September, the court returned Isis and
Matthew to Katti’s custody on the condition that she and the children reside with
Katti’s parents. Katti was to have no contact with the father, but he was allowed
supervised visitation with the children.
Trinity was born in March of 2008. The parents married a few days later.
Trinity was removed from Katti’s care upon Trinity’s release from the hospital two
weeks after her birth. She was placed in foster care. The court found her in
need of assistance in May.
After a permanency hearing in September, the court found the children
could not safely be returned to the care of either parent. The State then filed
petitions to terminate both parents’ parental rights.
Following a contested
hearing on January 12, 2009, the court filed its order on January 29, terminating
both parents’ rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h) and (i) (2007).
Statutory Grounds for Termination. Katti contends there is not clear
and convincing evidence supporting termination under section 232.116(1)(i).
She does not challenge the termination under section 232.116(1)(h). We find
4
clear and convincing evidence supports all the elements of section 232.116(1)(h)
and affirm the termination of Katti’s parental rights on that ground.
Parent-child Bond. Katti contends the court erred in ordering termination
“after finding that a strong bond existed between her and the children.” See Iowa
Code § 232.116(3). This claim is unsupported by the evidence or by the court’s
decision. The court made no finding that any bond existed between Katti and the
two older children. Katti did not seek such a finding by way of a post-trial motion
to amend or enlarge. The court found that “Katti also recognizes that Trinity is
not attached to her.”
mandatory.
Iowa Code section 232.116(3) is permissive, not
In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
The
juvenile court has the discretion to apply this section and not terminate parental
rights based on the circumstances before it and the best interests of the children.
Id. From our de novo review of the record, we find no basis for refusing to
terminate Katti’s parental rights based on the closeness of the parent-child
relationship because no close relationship exists.
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.
