IN THE INTEREST OF S.B., H.B., and X.B., Minor Children, J.B., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-410 / 09-0624
Filed July 2, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF S.B., H.B., and X.B.,
Minor Children,
J.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Michael R.
Stewart, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Jane Odland of Walker, Billingsley & Bair, Newton, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael W. Mahaffey, County Attorney, and Rebecca L. Petig,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Dennis E. McKelvie, Grinnell, for the father.
Terri A. Menninga, Pella, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel, J., and Beeghly, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
BEEGHLY, S.J.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
Jennifer and Jarrod are the parents of Hunter, born in 2004, Xavier, born
in 2005, and Skylar, born in 2007.
The parents’ relationship involved many
instances of domestic violence. Also, Jarrod used inappropriate discipline with
the children.
Furthermore, the home was extremely filthy and contained
pornographic material that was accessible to the children. The children were
removed from the parents’ care on February 8, 2008. The children were placed
with the maternal grandmother.
The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) under
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2007). In May 2008, Jennifer reported that
she had been raped by Jerrod.
The Department of Human Services (DHS)
suspended Jerrod’s visits with the children until he made arrangements for
mental health services. Jerrod stated he wanted no more contact with DHS. The
parents separated and filed for a divorce.
In addition to her regular scheduled weekly supervised visitation, DHS
stated that Jennifer could see the children three evenings per week at her
parents’ home, but she did not take advantage of this opportunity.
Jennifer
resisted going to counseling for domestic violence, and only attended a few
sessions. She refused to admit she had been a victim of domestic violence.
Jennifer was inconsistent in attending mental health counseling. She continued
to have contact with Jerrod, and he provided her with financial assistance.
3
On February 13, 2009, the State filed a petition seeking termination of the
parents’ rights. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights under sections
232.116(1)(f) (2009) (Hunter) and (h) (Xavier and Skylar). The court determined
the children could not be returned to Jennifer’s care, stating, “There is no
evidence that the mother would be able to consistently provide for the needs of
the three children on a daily basis, if the children were returned to her care.” The
court concluded termination of the parents’ rights was in the children’s best
interests. Jennifer appeals the termination of her parental rights.
II.
Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698
N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven 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 is the best interests of the
children. In re A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
III.
Merits
A.
Jennifer contends the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to
reunite her with the children. She claims she should have been permitted to
have unsupervised visitation with the children. DHS has an obligation to make
reasonable efforts toward reunification, but a parent has an equal obligation to
demand other, different, or additional services prior to the termination hearing. In
re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
4
The record does not show Jennifer requested unsupervised visitation prior
to the termination hearing, and we conclude she has failed to preserve this issue
for our review. Furthermore, even if this issue had been preserved, Jennifer did
not take advantage of the full amount of visitation offered to her, and thus it was
reasonable not to further expand her visitation.
She was permitted to have
visitation with the children at her parents’ home on three evenings each week,
but seldom visited the children there.
B.
Jennifer asserts there was insufficient evidence in the record to
support termination of her parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(f) or (h), and
she claims the children could be returned to her care. We determine there is
clear and convincing evidence in the record to show the children could not be
safely returned to Jennifer’s care. Jennifer had not addressed the issues that led
to the children’s removal. Despite the history of domestic violence with Jarrod,
she continued to have contact with him and made excuses for his behavior. As
the juvenile court noted, “the mother is hard-pressed to keep her own life in
order.” We conclude Jennifer’s parental rights were properly terminated under
sections 232.116(1)(f) and (h).
C.
Jennifer claims termination of her parental rights is not in the
children’s best interests. In looking at children’s best interests, we look at their
long-range, as well as immediate, best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170,
172 (Iowa 1997). We determine it is in the children’s best interests to terminate
Jennifer’s parental rights. Jennifer is unable to meet the children’s needs and
provide the safety and stability they require.
5
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court terminating Jennifer’s parental
rights to her three minor children.
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.
