IN THE INTEREST OF J.B. and B.T., Minor Children, J.A.T., Mother, Appellant, K.L.T., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-514 / 09-0732
Filed July 22, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF J.B. and B.T.,
Minor Children,
J.A.T., Mother,
Appellant,
K.L.T., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J.
Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Emilie J. Roth Richardson of Roth Law Office, P.C., Dubuque, for
appellant mother.
Christopher M. Soppe of Blair & Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and Jean Becker, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Mary Kelley, Dubuque, for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
A mother and father appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights. Upon our de novo review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
J.T. is the mother of four children. Her parental rights to her two oldest
children were terminated in 2001 for neglect. At issue here are her two youngest
children: J.B., born in September 2003, and B.T., born in April 2005. K.T. is the
father of B.T.1
In 2006 the Iowa Department of Human Services (Department) became
involved with the family following a report that B.T.’s arm was broken while the
child was left alone in the child’s bedroom. That report led to founded child
abuse reports against K.T. and J.T. for failure to provide B.T. proper supervision.
On or about April 2, 2008, the Department once again became involved
with the family after the Department received a report that J.B., then age four and
a half, had two black eyes and other injuries about J.B.’s head and face. K.T.
and J.T. maintained that J.B. had a temper tantrum at J.B.’s bedtime so they put
J.B. in J.B.’s bedroom, alone. At that time, the parents did not observe any
injuries. The parents stated that they discovered J.B.’s injuries the next morning
but were unable to establish how the injuries occurred.
The Department’s
caseworkers did not feel that J.B.’s injuries were consistent with the explanation
given by the parents.
The caseworkers then went to the family’s home
unannounced to assess the safety of the child.
1
J.B.’s father, R.B., does not appeal the termination of his parental rights.
3
Once at the home, the workers were able to observe bruising around both
of J.B.’s eyes, two lacerations, and other bruising on J.B.’s cheek and jaw. One
worker also noted several additional concerns, specifically that J.B. was
extremely small for the child’s age, J.B. was still in diapers, J.B. was unable to
verbalize any words or sentences and was unable to identify any body parts,
J.B.’s bedroom was barren except for a small toddler bed with no bedding, and
there were locks on the outside of the children’s bedroom doors. One worker
observed that B.T. was locked in B.T.’s bedroom, but the parents stated that J.B.
had locked the door, not them.
The caseworkers attempted to develop a safety plan with the parents at
that time, but the parents became very defensive and began yelling and
screaming that they were not going to cooperate. The parents then instructed
the workers to leave the property. Once outside, the workers contacted the court
for authorization to remove the children.
After authorization for removal was
received and law enforcement arrived on scene, the workers discovered that the
parents had left through a back door with the children and could not be found.
When the workers and law enforcement returned to the home on or about April 3,
2008, the parents were present but the children were not. The parents initially
indicated they would not disclose where the children were located; however, after
approximately an hour of questioning and threat of pursuing a contempt of court
action, the parents advised that the children were located with a relative in
another county. The children were then removed from the parents’ care and
placed in foster care.
4
On April 7, 2008, the State filed petitions asserting the children to be
children in need of assistance (CINA). Thereafter, the juvenile court ordered
funding for full mental health-psychological evaluations, parental assessments,
and IQ testing of the parents. Following the parents’ mental health evaluations,
K.T. was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and narcissistic personality
disorder with paranoid personality features and histrionic personality features.
J.T. was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety, obsessive compulsive
personality disorder with avoidant personality features and paranoid personality
features. It was recommended that the parents engage in long-term individual
counseling on a weekly basis.
After the children’s removal, J.B. was seen by a doctor at the University of
Iowa regarding J.B.’s small stature and speech delays. The doctor noted in her
deposition that J.B. was growth-delayed in all three parameters—head
circumference, weight, and height. The doctor stated that concerns were noted
regarding J.B.’s development as early as 2004, but the parents had neglected to
follow through with further testing. The doctor noted that J.B.’s speech was that
of a nine-to-twelve-month old, although the child was physically four and a half
years in age. Based upon her evaluation of J.B. and review of prior reports, the
doctor opined that the children had suffered at the least emotional neglect and at
the worst, emotional abuse as a result of being locked in barren rooms for
extended periods of time and nutritional neglect. The doctor diagnosed J.B. with
failure to thrive. Ultimately, all medical and organic causes for failure to thrive
were ruled out, leaving environmental conditions in the parents’ home as the
cause of the diagnosis.
5
On August 8, 2008, the juvenile court adjudicated J.B. and B.T. to be
children in need of assistance (CINA). To reunify the family, the court, in its
August 22, 2008 disposition order, granted the parents visitation with the children
and ordered the parents to cooperate with family, safety, risk, and permanency
services, including parenting assessment and education.
The court further
ordered that the parents follow through with the recommendations of their mental
health evaluations and authorized funds for the parents’ ongoing treatment. The
court ordered the parents to participate with Crossroads and the children’s
therapy, to remove the locks from the children’s doors, and to properly furnish the
rooms in an age-appropriate manner, including bedding, blankets, and ageappropriate toys and/or games.
A review hearing was held on February 23, 2009. It was reported that the
parents had made little, if any, progress since the onset of the case.
On
March 23, 2009, the State filed petitions for the termination of the parents’
parental rights. In an order filed April 30, 2009, the juvenile court terminated the
parents’ parental rights to J.B. and B.T. pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) (2009) (child is four years or older, has been adjudicated CINA, has
been removed from parent’s custody for at least twelve of eighteen months, and
cannot be returned to custody of parent).
The father and mother appeal separately.
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). Although we give weight to the juvenile court’s findings of
fact, we are not bound by them. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001).
6
The grounds for termination must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). 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).
III. Discussion.
A. Grounds for Termination and Additional Time.
The parents first contend the statutory grounds for termination were not
satisfied.
The parents do not dispute the first three elements of Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) have been established.
Instead, they both contend the
fourth element of section 232.116(1)(f), that there is clear and convincing
evidence the children cannot be returned to the parents’ custody as provided in
section 232.102, has not been proved by the State. The mother also contends
she should have been given additional time to remedy the situation for which the
children were removed. We disagree.
Here, the children were removed in April 2008. Since that time, multiple
services have been offered to the parents, including supervised visitation, family,
safety, risk, and permanency services, mental health evaluations and services,
referrals to Crossroads, Hillcrest Mental Health Center, and family team
meetings. Despite the offer of services, the record reveals that the parents have
made little to no progress towards reunification with the children. The parents’
participation in services and visitations with the children has been sporadic.
When attending the visits, K.T. regularly slept.
Although the mother showed
7
some progress in preparing meals for the children without being prompted during
visits, the supervisors continued to have to prompt the parents to interact and
play with the children and to change diapers or attend to the children’s toileting
needs, among other things. The visits never progressed to unsupervised due to
the parents requiring continual prompting to parent the children.
Additionally, the parents have shown little insight into their children’s
medical needs. Insight for the future can only be gained from the parents’ past
actions. In re R.L.F., 437 N.W.2d 599, 601 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989). The record
reveals that the parents were advised of concerns in J.B.’s delays in 2004 yet did
not follow-up upon those concerns. The parents were also informed in 2006 that
J.B. had an elevated lead level, requiring medical follow-ups, yet failed to take
J.B. for all of the necessary follow-ups.
Although J.B. was still in diapers,
extremely small in stature, and unable to speak at four and half years of age, the
parents did not seek medical attention for J.B. J.B. was diagnosed with failure to
thrive. B.T. also has developmental delays. However, the parents continue to
have zero insight on how their parenting has caused the children to have
significant development and physical delays.
It is vital that the parents
acknowledge and recognize the abuse before any meaningful change can occur.
In re H.R.K., 433 N.W.2d 46, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988). Additionally, both parents
have medical conditions of their own and have had poor follow through with their
own follow-up and preventative care, requiring frequent emergency care
treatment. Both parents have been diagnosed with mental health issues, yet J.T.
failed to continue treatment and K.T. failed to enter therapy at all.
8
While the law requires a “full measure of patience with troubled parents
who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills,” this patience has been built into
the statutory scheme of chapter 232. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa
2000). Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural
parent. Id. At some point, the rights and needs of the children rise above the
rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App.
1997). The children are flourishing in foster care. J.B. is potty-trained and both
children’s speech has improved. Both children have gained weight and are more
outgoing and engaging. The foster parents are willing to adopt the children. The
evidence here simply does not support the conclusion that the children can be
returned to the parents’ care at the present time or with additional time without
exposing the children to significant risk of abuse or neglect. Consequently, we
agree with the juvenile court’s finding clear and convincing evidence existed in
the record to support the termination of the parents’ parental rights.
B. Parent/Child Relationship.
Additionally, citing Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c), the father claims the
juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights to B.T. due to the closeness
of the parent-child relationship. It does not appear that any section 232.116(3)
issues were either raised by the father in the termination proceedings or
addressed by the juvenile court in its order terminating his parental rights. See In
re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (“As a general rule, an
issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on
appeal.”). Consequently, the father has not preserved error on this claim, and we
do not address it any further.
9
IV. Conclusion.
Because the evidence here simply does not support the conclusion that
the children can be returned to the parents’ care at the present time or with
additional time without exposing the children to significant risk of abuse or
neglect, we agree with the juvenile court’s finding clear and convincing evidence
existed in the record to support the termination of the parents’ parental rights.
Additionally, because we conclude the father has not preserved error on his
claim that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights to B.T. due to
the closeness of the parent-child relationship, we do not address it any further.
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.
