IN THE INTEREST OF M.C., P.C., and S.C., Minor Children, M.V.C., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-401 / 09-0517
Filed June 17, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF M.C., P.C., and S.C.,
Minor Children,
M.V.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Michael J. Cross, Hampton, for appellant mother.
Randy Johansen, Hampton, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Brent Symens, County Attorney, and Daniel F. Wiechmann Jr.,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Larry Johnson of Walters & Johnson, Iowa Falls, for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to three of her
children. Upon our de novo review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
M.V.C. is the mother and J.C. is the father of eight children. Their three
youngest children, M.C. (born May 1991), P.C. (born March 1999), and S.C.
(born October 2001), are the subjects of these termination proceedings.1
The children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (Department) in February 2008 after the family’s pastor reported that
M.C. told him her father had sexually abused her. The pastor reported that M.C.
stated that she told her mother about the abuse, but her mother did not believe
her. M.C. also stated that she was worried about what might be happening to
S.C. The children were removed from their parents’ home and placed in family
foster care.
The children were interviewed by St. Luke’s Hospital Child Protection
Center on February 12, 2008.
M.C. again reported she had been sexually
abused by her father and that she told her mother about the abuse, but her
mother was not sure what to do. Additionally, M.C. stated that she had also been
sexually abused by her brother J.L.C. Both P.C. and S.C. reported they had
been sexually abused by J.L.C.
S.C. stated that she told her mother about
J.L.C.’s abuse and her mother told her to “push him or something like that.”
1
This appeal concerns only M.V.C.’s parental rights. J.C. has not appealed from the
termination of his parental rights.
3
On February 14, 2008, the State filed petitions alleging M.C., P.C., and
S.C. to be children in need of assistance (CINA). On March 4, 2008, the court
entered its order adjudicating the children CINA.
The mother was granted
visitation with the children.
The father ultimately pled guilty to indecent contact with a child stemming
from M.C.’s abuse and received five years probation. J.L.C. admitted to sexually
abusing his sisters and received services. J.L.C. continued to reside with the
mother, though the mother made efforts to have J.L.C. placed in another home.
There were allegations that the father continued to live with the mother.
On August 26, 2008, a hearing was held on the State’s request that the
juvenile court make a finding that aggravating circumstances existed such that
the Department was relieved from its responsibility to make reasonable efforts to
reunify the children with their parents. The Department’s caseworker testified
she had not previously dealt with such a severe case of sexual abuse and stated
it would take years of therapy before these children could be safely placed back
in the paternal home in her estimation.
The caseworker expressed some
misgivings about the mother’s willingness to acknowledge the extent and nature
of the abuse and about the amount of control that the father exercised over the
mother. The caseworker testified that the mother was unwilling to participate in
individual therapy to address issues of protecting her children from sexual abuse.
The caseworker testified that the children were making progress in foster care,
but the children acted out after visitations with the mother. G.C. and M.V.C.M.,
two of the parents’ adult daughters not subject to these proceedings, testified that
they had been abused by their father as children and that their mother knew
4
about the abuse. The mother testified that she could protect her children and
take care of them, and that she would not allow the father contact with them.
She further testified she never stated she did not believe the children had been
abused or refused to participate in therapy.
On October 21, 2008, the juvenile court entered its order finding
aggravating circumstances existed and waiving the requirement of the
Department to make reasonable efforts to reunify the children with their parents.
The court found that in the parents’ household, the father had over a period of
more than ten years sexually abused three of his daughters. The court found the
parents’ son J.L.C. had sexually abused his three younger siblings. The court
found the sexual abuse was not minor or isolated; it was pervasive and
longstanding in nature, and the latest sexual abuse involved all three children
with multiple perpetrators. The court found the children and their parents would
require extensive counseling to address these issues.
The court therefore
concluded that the State established by clear and convincing evidence that the
offer or receipt of services would not correct the conditions that led to the abuse
or neglect of the children within a reasonable period of time.
On January 9, 2009, the State filed petitions to terminate the parents’
parental rights to M.C., P.C., and S.C. Following a hearing, the court entered an
order on March 29, 2009, terminating the mother’s parental rights to the children
pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) & (i) (2009). The court concluded:
These children have been the victims of sexual abuse and
physical abuse. The sexual abuse that has been perpetrated in this
family is horrific. [The father] has had sex with two of his biological
daughters. [The mother] was aware that her husband had sex with
one of her daughters and did not protect her other children from this
5
predator. In fact, it is clear in the year 2000, these children were
living apart from [the father]. [The mother] and these children were
residing in the Republic of Mexico, and [the father] was in
Minnesota. [The mother] brought the children to [the father] and
provided such lax supervision that she allowed both her husband
and her son to sexually abuse [M.C.]. She also allowed her son,
[J.L.C.], to sexually abuse [M.C., S.C.], and to a lesser extent
[P.C.].
During the initial investigation of the report of sexual abuse
in the home, both [G.C. and M.V.C.M., two of the parents’ adult
daughters,] made numerous statements indicating that their mother
had knowledge of the abuse that was occurring in the home. The
mother has denied this. The court has also received reports that
after [the father] was arrested, that [the mother, G.C., and
M.V.C.M.] made statements indicating that they did not believe
these reports of sexual abuse. The mother has again denied that
she has ever questioned her children’s statements of abuse.
Even if the mother is to believed, that she was unaware that
three of her children were being subjected to sexual abuse, that her
daughter, [M.C.], was being sexually abused by both her husband
and her son, this mother has utterly failed to protect these children.
She is in no position to state that she can in any way keep these
children safe. If her testimony is to be believed, all this abuse
occurred despite the fact that she knew that her husband had sex
with one of her older daughters almost ten years before this current
abuse came to light.
....
The abuse that these children have suffered is pervasive. It
will require long-term counseling. . . . The damage that [the father]
has done to their family is irreversible. [The mother] facilitated the
sexual abuse of these children by bringing them back into contact
with their father and by failing to protect them.
The mother appeals.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d
147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be supported by clear
and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). We are
primarily concerned with the children’s best interests in termination proceedings.
In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
Even when the
6
statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to terminate parental
rights must reflect the children’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400
(Iowa 1994). When we consider the children’s best interests, we look to their
long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172
(Iowa 1997).
III. Discussion.
On appeal, the mother claims the State failed to employ reasonable efforts
to preserve and unify the children with her. Additionally, she contends the State
failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the abuse posed a
significant risk to the life of the children or constituted imminent danger to the
children as the children had been removed from the home, and that the offer or
receipt of services by the mother would not correct the conditions that led to the
abuse or neglect of the children with any reasonable period of time. We address
each of the mother’s arguments in turn.
A. Reasonable Efforts.
The Department has an obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunite
parents with children. Iowa Code § 232.102(7). However, the juvenile court may
waive
reasonable
efforts
when
aggravated
circumstances
exist.
Id.
§ 232.102(12). One such aggravated circumstance is when the court finds the
circumstances described in section 232.116(1)(i) are applicable to the child. Id.
§ 232.102(12)(b).
Section 232.116(1)(i), also one of the grounds found for
terminating the mother’s parental rights, requires (1) the child meets the definition
of CINA based on a finding of physical or sexual abuse or neglect as a result of
the acts or omissions of one or both parents, (2) there is clear and convincing
7
evidence that the abuse or neglect posed a significant risk to the life of the child
or constituted imminent danger to the child, and (3) there is clear and convincing
evidence that the offer or receipt of services would not correct the conditions that
led to the abuse or neglect of the child within a reasonable time.
§ 232.116(1)(i).
Id.
In a detailed and well-reasoned ruling, the juvenile court
determined such aggravated circumstances exist here.
We agree with the
juvenile court’s conclusions.
M.C. and S.C. both told the Child Protection Center’s interviewer that they
told their mother about the abuse. Two of the older daughters told Department
workers that they had been abused by their father and told their mother of the
abuse. The mother admitted the oldest daughter had told her about the sexual
abuse. Despite this, the mother continued to reside with the father and allowed
the father contact with the children. The mother’s claim that she did not know of
the abuse is simply not credible. Furthermore, as the juvenile court concluded,
even if the mother is believed that she was unaware that three of her children
were being subjected to sexual abuse, the mother failed to protect these children.
The sexual abuse perpetrated on these children was not minor or isolated; it was
pervasive and occurring over many years. M.C. was sexually abused by her
father, and all three children were abused by their brother J.L.C. For this amount
of abuse to occur over this time period, the mother clearly provided such lax
supervision that she allowed both her husband and her son to sexually abuse
[M.C.] and her son to abuse P.C. and S.C. Moreover, the children acted out after
visits with the mother, and the Department’s caseworker testified that the children
8
would need years of counseling for them to be able to be placed back in their
mother’s care.
For all of the reasons set forth above, we conclude the juvenile court was
correct in finding the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that
aggravated circumstances as described in Iowa Code section 232.102(12)(b)
exist that justify waiving the requirements for making reasonable efforts to
achieve family reunification.
B. Grounds for Termination.
The mother next argues the State failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the abuse posed a significant risk to the life of the children or
constituted imminent danger to the children as the children had been removed
from the home, and that the offer or receipt of services by the mother would not
correct the conditions that led to the abuse or neglect of the children with any
reasonable period of time. These are the second and third elements necessary
to establish termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(i), as set forth
above. However, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights on
two statutory grounds: 232.116(1)(f) & (i). We need only find that termination is
appropriate on one ground to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1999). Because the mother does not challenge termination under section
232.116(1)(f), we affirm on that ground.
IV. Conclusion.
Because we conclude the juvenile court was correct in finding the State
proved by clear and convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances as
described in Iowa Code section 232.102(12)(b) exist which justify waiving the
9
requirements for making reasonable efforts to achieve family reunification, and
because the mother does not challenge termination under sections 232.116(1)(f),
we affirm the order of the juvenile court terminating the mother’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.
