IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.B., Minor Child, M.A.W., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-406 / 09-0626
Filed June 17, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.B.,
Minor Child,
M.A.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane
Sokolovske, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Molly Vakulskas Joly, Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and David Dawson,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Robert Pierson, Sioux City, for intervenor.
Lesley Rynell of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
M.L.B. was born in October 2002 to M.W., who has a history of significant
drug abuse and legal problems. In December 2003, M.W. placed M.L.B. with
M.W.’s mother.
The child was cared for by her maternal grandmother (her
“factual custodian”) for most of her life. M.W. visited M.L.B. one or two times per
year when the child was one to five years old. More recently and since M.W.’s
release from incarceration, M.W. has seen M.L.B. “a couple times per month.”
However, there is no mother/daughter bond. M.W. has provided no support for
M.L.B.
M.L.B.’s grandmother sought adjudication of M.L.B. as a child in need of
assistance (CINA) because M.L.B. has many special needs and her grandmother
felt unable to care for her without help. She voluntarily placed M.L.B. in foster
care in December 2008. M.L.B. was adjudicated CINA in January 2009. At the
adjudicatory hearing, M.W. agreed that it was best for M.L.B. to be adopted,
indicating that she could not handle M.L.B.’s behaviors. A petition to terminate
M.W.’s parental rights1 was filed in February 2009, alleging termination was
proper under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(a) (consent) and (1)(b) (2009)
(abandonment).
The matter came on for hearing on April 8, 2009. M.W. appeared with
counsel and offered into evidence exhibit 101, her “Consent to Termination of
Parental Rights.” She offered no additional evidence. The consent form was
signed on March 23, 2009, and states in part:
1
The father’s rights were also terminated by consent, and he has not appealed.
3
4. I understand that the purpose of this Consent to
Termination of Parental Rights is to provide written evidence of my
desire to consent to the termination of my parental rights to the
above-named child.
....
7. I understand that my consent to the termination of
parental rights to the above-named child may be withdrawn at any
time until the Juvenile Court issues an order terminating my
parental rights . . . [and] if I withdraw this Consent to Termination of
Parental Rights, the State may continue to pursue termination of
my parental rights involuntarily and this document may be used as
evidence in such a proceeding.
The court entered an order terminating M.W.’s parental rights, finding
clear and convincing evidence supported both consent and abandonment, the
statutory grounds asserted.
The court specifically found that M.W. had not
revoked her consent to the termination of her parental rights. The court did not
address the absence of a witness’s signature on the consent form, as that issue
was not raised. The court also found that termination was in the best interests of
the child as M.L.B. “deserves an opportunity for permanency and stability in her
life.”
M.W. now appeals contending her consent document did not meet the
statutory criteria because her signature was not witnessed and neither the
document nor the record contained the mother’s reasons supporting “good
cause” for her consent.
See Iowa Code § 232.116(a) (2009).
She further
contends that there was not clear and convincing evidence of abandonment. We
affirm.
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698
N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005).
“When the juvenile court terminates parental
rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate
4
under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm.” In re S.R., 600
N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
The grounds for termination must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.P., 757 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2008). Evidence is clear and convincing when it leaves 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). Our primary concern in termination
cases is the best interests of the child. In re A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2007).
From our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the juvenile court
correctly determined there was clear and convincing evidence that M.W.
abandoned her parental responsibilities of M.L.B., see In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d
291, 293 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (“Abandonment is characterized as a giving up of
parental rights and responsibilities accompanied by an intent to forego them.”),
and that termination was in M.L.B.’s best interests. We therefore affirm.
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.
