IN THE INTEREST OF T.R., Minor Child, T.M.R., n/k/a T.M.E., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-364 / 09-0211
Filed June 17, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.,
Minor Child,
T.M.R., n/k/a T.M.E., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Ellen R. Ramsey-Kacena, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Lance Hereen, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Sharon Hallstoos, Cedar Rapids, for minor child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Tiffany appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights to T.R. (born 2004) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2007). 1
On appeal, she asserts that T.R. could have been returned to her care and
termination was not in T.R.’s best interests. We affirm.
In March 2007, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became
involved with Tiffany and her two children after Tiffany left them with a friend so
she could go to Tama to gamble. When Tiffany failed to return as promised, the
friend called the police. The older of the two children child was sent to live with
his father. T.R., the younger child, was adjudicated to be a child in need of
assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and 232.2(6)(g) and
placed with her maternal grandmother.
In October 2007, a trial home placement began. Tiffany repeatedly failed
to send T.R. to daycare. During this time, Tiffany also gave birth to a third child.
In January 2008, despite being warned not to leave T.R. with a caretaker who
was not approved by DHS workers, Tiffany left T.R. in the care of a friend who
sexually abused T.R.
Tiffany immediately reported the incident and has
expressed deep regret that it occurred. The trial home placement ended, and
T.R. was again placed with Tiffany’s mother. T.R.’s younger sibling was also
placed with the maternal grandmother.
On May 13, 2008, the State petitioned to terminate Tiffany’s parental
rights to T.R.
1
On June 2, 2008, a hearing was held, during which Tiffany
The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of T.R.’s putative fathers, which
are not at issue in this appeal.
3
reported that she was pregnant with her fourth child and not receiving prenatal
care. A termination hearing was scheduled for August 21 and 26, 2008, but was
rescheduled due to Tiffany’s hospitalization for October 7 and 9, 2008.
On
October 7, the hearing commenced, but the second day of hearing was
continued due to Tiffany’s attorney being ill. Shortly thereafter, T.R. turned four
years old2 and Tiffany also gave birth to her fourth child. On November 25, 2008,
the hearing was completed.
By the time of the termination hearing, T.R. had spent approximately
eighty percent of her lifetime in the care of her maternal grandmother. Tiffany
received semi-supervised visits, which included parenting instruction.
Tiffany
had addressed some concerns raised in the past by DHS. She and her husband
were living in an apartment that was clean and suitable for T.R. Tiffany also
appeared to have overcome her past issues with respect to use of illegal drugs.
However, some other concerns remained. Tiffany suffers from depression
and has difficulty handling stress. The records suggest that Tiffany has made
repeated unnecessary visits to the hospital emergency room. The records also
indicate a heavy demand for and usage of prescription painkillers.
Although
Tiffany had the opportunity to visit T.R. at her mother’s home (T.R.’s maternal
grandmother), she exercised that opportunity relatively rarely.
2
The State pled Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), which contains the same substantive
requirements as subsection (f), but applies to children “three years of age or younger.”
At the time the termination hearing began, T.R. was three years old, but she turned four
before the hearing was concluded. Tiffany argues on appeal that the juvenile court
could no longer apply section 232.116(1)(h) once T.R. turned four. However, we believe
subsection (h) may apply in a case where the hearing commenced before the child
turned four, especially when the hearing was continued to accommodate the mother and
the mother’s attorney. See In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 693 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).
4
The State’s witnesses testified that they did not believe Tiffany would be
capable of taking care of T.R., especially given her responsibilities to her
newborn. In her testimony on November 25, 2008, the maternal grandmother
described receiving a very recent tearful night-time call where Tiffany was in the
parking lot of her apartment with her newborn, having been kicked out of the
apartment by her husband. The maternal grandmother testified that she receives
calls like this on a weekly basis. Meanwhile, the maternal grandmother is ready
and willing to adopt T.R. Tiffany agrees that she has no concerns about her
mother’s care for T.R. and that this would be a suitable home for T.R. if parental
rights are terminated.
We review termination of parental rights de novo. See In re J.E., 723
N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). Like the juvenile court, we find that Tiffany has
made meaningful progress in overcoming challenges in her life. Nonetheless, we
ultimately agree with that court that there is clear and convincing evidence that
T.R. cannot be returned to Tiffany at this time.
See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(h)(4).3 The last time the T.R. went home with Tiffany, a very poor
decision was made that resulted in T.R.’s being sexually abused.
Tiffany
appears to have ongoing and unaddressed mental health issues. She has been
offered mental health counseling, but her participation has been sporadic. Her
husband’s conduct, including his apparent unwillingness to participate in anger
management sessions, also raises concerns.
3
Tiffany does not dispute that T.R. has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
and has been removed from the home for the last six consecutive months. Iowa Code
§§ 232.116(1)(h)(2) & (3). As noted above, we also believe that section 232.116(1)(h)(1)
has been met because T.R. did not turn four until after the commencement of the
termination hearing.
5
Tiffany makes a further argument that the State did not make reasonable
efforts to reunify her with T.R. She particularly finds fault with the parenting
services she was offered outside of visitation. The record shows that Tiffany did
receive parenting services through Young Parents Network in 2007, but these
were ultimately discontinued because Tiffany’s husband was dissatisfied with the
group. Shortly before the hearing, Tiffany began to receive parenting services
through Linn County Home Health. Tiffany contends that during much of 2008,
she did not receive parenting skill services. Although the record is not entirely
clear on why this occurred, we reemphasize that it is the State’s obligation to
make reasonable efforts toward reunification, including offering parenting
services when needed. However, it is undisputed that at the June 2, 2008 review
hearing and pretrial conference, it was noted without objection that reasonable
efforts had been made including the provision of parenting services. We believe
that if needed services were not being provided, Tiffany and her counsel should
have raised the issue at that time. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1999) (stating a parent who does not demand other services than those
provided has not preserved the issue for appellate review); see also In re C.H.,
652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002) (“[I]f a parent fails to request other services at
the proper time, the parent waives the issue and may not later challenge it at the
termination proceeding.”).
Finally, we find that termination is in T.R.’s best interests. See 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). As one witness testified:
6
Q. Is [T.R.] exhibiting signs of needing permanency?
A. Yes, she has.
Q. In what ways? A. The behaviors that she displays. She
cries a lot of times when we’re at visits either – and sometimes it’s
on the way to the visit, that she doesn’t want to go. And other times
it’s when we’re leaving the visit that she doesn’t want to leave. I’ve
talked to [T.R.] about it. [T.R.] is confused. [T.R.] doesn’t know
where home is. Is home with grandma or is home with mom?
[T.R.] doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to have to choose if she
wants to be with grandma or with mom, because she loves them
both but she needs a permanent environment and stability in her
life. She needs to be able to call it home and feel comfortable
going home every day.
For the foregoing reasons, 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.
