IN THE INTEREST OF A.G. and K.B., Minor Children, T.L.G., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-575 / 09-0943
Filed August 6, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF A.G. and K.B.,
Minor Children,
T.L.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla Fultz, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Jared C. Harmon, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Christine Bisignano, Windsor Heights, for appellee father J.G.
Jason Hauser, Des Moines, for appellee father D.G.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Faye Jenkins,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
The children at issue in this case first came to the attention of the court on
March 3, 2008, when their mother, T.G., consented to temporary removal.1 The
juvenile court entered an order on March 24, 2008, adjudicating K.B. and A.G. to
be children in need of assistance. T.G. had a history of substance abuse prior to
the removal of her children.
Following removal, T.G. initially attended supervised visits with her
children. However, in September of 2008, T.G.’s visits were suspended because
of concerns regarding her mental health and substance abuse issues. T.G. was
allowed to visit her children on October 9, 2008, to celebrate one of the children’s
birthdays, but she has not seen the children since that date because her visits
continued to be suspended.
T.G. initially submitted drug screens as required according to the juvenile
court’s order. However, in July of 2008, T.G. provided two positive drug screens.
T.G. then sporadically complied with the requirement for drug screens until
September 16, 2008, when she quit providing drug screens.
T.G. has struggled with prescription drug abuse throughout the life of this
case. She has been unsuccessfully discharged from two treatment programs
since her children were removed. T.G. was admitted to medical facilities four
times during September and October of 2008 because of mental health and
substance abuse issues.
T.G. has failed to follow through with necessary
services.
1
The children were living with T.G. and A.G.’s father, D.G., at the time. D.G.’s parental
rights have not been terminated, and only T.G.’s parental rights are at issue on appeal.
The children currently reside with D.G.
3
T.G. has also had problems with the criminal justice system. She was
arrested in October of 2008 and January and February of 2009 for theft charges
and probation violation. On February 25, 2009, T.G. was sentenced to two years
in prison.
Tina Christensen, the caseworker from the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) assigned to this case, testified the children could not be returned
to T.G.’s care “due to her unresolved substance abuse, unresolved mental health
concerns,
and
incarceration.”
Christensen
further
stated,
“Additional
rehabilitative services would not be likely, within a reasonable period of time, to
correct the conditions which led to [the children’s] removal from [T.G.’s] care and
custody.” Christensen also reported that T.G. places blame on others and does
not take responsibility for her actions. We agree with Christensen’s assessment
that the children cannot be returned to T.G.’s care at the present time and that
additional services would not be likely to resolve the situation in a reasonable
period of time.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we find clear and convincing
evidence supports termination of T.G.’s parental rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(l) (2009). The children have been adjudicated children in need of
assistance and removed from T.G.’s physical custody.
See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(l)(1). T.G. has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem and
presents a danger to herself, as evidenced by her frequent hospitalizations. See
id. § 232.116(1)(l)(2). There is clear and convincing evidence the children will
not be able to return to T.G.’s custody within a reasonable period of time
4
considering their ages and need for a permanent home.
See id.
§ 232.116(1)(l)(3).
We also find it is in K.B.’s and A.G.’s best interests that T.G.’s parental
rights be terminated. See In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981)
(“Appellate review of proceedings to terminate a parent-child relationship is de
novo.”). The primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of
the children.
In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 275 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
In
determining the children’s best interests, we look to their long-range as well as
immediate best interests. Id. In considering what the future likely holds for the
children, we can gain insight from the parent’s past performance, which “may be
indicative of the quality of the future care the parent is capable of providing.” Id.
T.G. is currently incarcerated and will be unable to parent the children for
an extended period of time. She has an extensive history of substance abuse,
which she has been unable to overcome. “Where the parent has been unable to
rise above the addiction and experience sustained sobriety in a noncustodial
setting, and establish the essential support system to maintain sobriety, there is
little hope of success in parenting.” In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1998). Further, at the time of trial, T.G. had not seen her children for nearly
seven months. The DHS caseworker involved and the children’s guardian ad
litem both recommended termination of T.G.’s parental rights. While we do not
doubt that T.G. loves her children, as she argues in her brief, we find she cannot
provide them with a stable and permanent home. “A child’s safety and the need
for a permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s
best interests.”
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J.,
5
concurring specially). We agree with the juvenile court that terminating T.G.’s
parental rights is in the children’s best interests.
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.
