IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.O.-M., W.E.O.-M., and A.G.O.-M., Minor Children, F.G.M.-F., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-362 / 09-0476
Filed May 29, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.O.-M., W.E.O.-M., and A.G.O.-M.,
Minor Children,
F.G.M.-F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane
Sokolovske, Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her
three children. AFFIRMED.
Stephanie Forker Parry of Forker & Parry, Sioux City, for appellant
mother.
Tod Deck, Sioux City, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and David Dawson,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Lesley Rynell of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for minor children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J, and Eisenhauer and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Flor appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental rights
to her daughters A.O.-M. (born 2002), W.O.-M. (born 2004), and B.O.-M. (born
2006) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (i) (2007).1
Flor challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and asserts that termination is not
in the children’s best interests. We affirm.
Flor has previously resided in Sioux City, but moved to Minnesota and
then Denver, Colorado.
In July 2007, the Colorado Department of Human
Services became involved with the family when the children were found
wandering unsupervised in the parking lot of their apartment building, which was
followed by sexual abuse allegations and unstable living arrangements.
Repeated referrals were made to the Family-to-Family agency, but Flor did not
participate in spite of the fact that she reported that she needed assistance
obtaining food for the family. Flor was unable to care for the children, and in
February 2008, she and the father left them with a friend in Sioux City. She and
their father signed a notarized document that purported to make the friend the
“guardian” of the children with “full temporary custody.” In addition to A.O.-M.,
W.O.-M., and B.O.-M., the friend already had her own six children and a fiancé of
one of her children residing with her.
In March 2008, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became
involved with Flor’s children due to physical abuse of W.O.-M. The children were
still living with the friend at that time, while Flor continued to reside in Denver.
1
The district court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s father, which are
not at issue in this appeal.
3
The treating physician stated that W.O.-M. had been “beaten up” and the injuries
were caused by blunt force trauma to her face. DHS determined that W.O.-M.
had been physically abused but was unable to identify the perpetrator.
Subsequently, all three children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance
pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) and 232.2(6)(c)(2).
In August 2008, the children were removed from the friend’s care and
placed in foster care. A DHS home study did not recommend continuation of
placement with the friend. Although DHS workers urged Flor to return to Sioux
City to participate in reunification services or to participate in services in
Colorado, Flor remained in Denver and did not participate in services.
DHS
workers, along with the district court in multiple orders, warned Flor that the
removal of the children might lead to the termination of her parental rights. While
in Colorado, Flor did not maintain stable or suitable housing, staying with friends
in arrangements that would not be suitable for her three daughters. Flor did not
maintain personal contact with the children. She visited them a few times in the
first half of 2008, but did not subsequently see them until January 2009, which
was after the termination petition was filed. She did not maintain regular contact
by telephone or letters. In the first half of 2008, Flor sent $1200 for the children’s
support. However, Flor has not provided any further financial support for the
children.
We review termination of parental rights cases de novo. In re J.E., 723
N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). The children have done well in foster care and
are in need of a safe and permanent home. See id. at 801 (Cady, J., concurring
specially) (stating children’s safety and their need for a permanent home are the
4
defining elements in determining a child’s best interests).
Flor essentially
abandoned her children in February 2008. Since then, she has not participated
in services and has not had significant personal contact with the children. The
housing arrangement that Flor proposed for the children at the February 2009
termination hearing was the same arrangement that Flor believed was
unsatisfactory for them in February 2008 when she sent them to Iowa to stay with
her friend. The children should not be forced to remain in foster care waiting for
Flor to decide if she wants to put herself in a position where she can parent them.
See e.g., In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987) (“[P]atience with parents
can soon translate into intolerable hardship for their children.”); In re J.P., 499
N.W.2d 334, 339 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (“A child should not be forced to endlessly
suffer the parentless limbo of foster care.”). “At some point, the rights and needs
of the [children] rise above the rights and needs for the parents.” In re J.L.W.,
570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). We conclude that Flor’s arguments
are without merit and termination is in the children’s best interests. Thus, we
affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.29(1)(a), (c), (d), and (e).
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.
