IN THE INTEREST OF C.C., Minor Child, M.L.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-725 / 09-1017
Filed September 17, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF C.C.,
Minor Child,
M.L.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Kara McFadden, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Judith Hoover, Cedar Rapids, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
M.L.S. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her daughter, C.C. (born 2003), pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) (2007).1 On appeal, M.L.S. asserts the State failed to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be returned to her custody
at the present time and that termination of her parental rights was not in the best
interests of the child. We affirm.
C.C. was first referred to the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
on October 18, 2005, when M.L.S. requested voluntary foster care placement. At
the time, M.L.S. was without housing and recognized that she needed help in
providing adequate care for C.C.
On November 9, 2005, DHS filed a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)
petition.
Proceedings were initially continued when M.L.S. obtained housing,
cooperated with parenting services, and participated in a psychological
evaluation.
As a result of the evaluation, anger management therapy was
recommended for M.L.S.
CINA proceedings were reinstated when M.L.S.
terminated the voluntary placement.
On May 26, 2006, C.C. was adjudicated to be a CINA pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (6)(e), (6)(g), and (6)(n). At a hearing held on
June 29, 2006, the juvenile court determined that C.C. should remain in M.L.S.’s
custody under the protective supervision of DHS.
1
C.C.’s father’s parental rights were also terminated by a signed “Release of Custody
and Consent to Termination of Parent/Child Relationship” pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(a), and are not at issue in this appeal.
3
During this time, DHS offered services to alleviate concerns with M.L.S.’s
parenting techniques and lifestyle, anger management issues, and substance
abuse. However, M.L.S. had inconsistent attendance at therapy sessions, and
only completed one drug test. In addition, on December 10, 2006, Cedar Rapids
police responded to a report of illegal drug use within an apartment complex.
When they arrived, M.L.S. was one of the people identified, and was seen
spraying air freshener into the air. Once inside, the police could smell an odor of
marijuana and observed C.C. sleeping on the couch.
Following the incident, DHS interviewed M.L.S where she admitted to
using marijuana, said there was nothing DHS could do about it, and made threats
of leaving Cedar Rapids to avoid DHS intervention. As a result, DHS requested
a court order to remove C.C. from M.L.S.’s custody. On February 28, 2007, the
request was granted, and C.C. was placed in foster care. On May 4, 2007, C.C.
was placed with her maternal great-great aunt.
In that same month, M.L.S.
tested positive for cocaine.2
DHS continued to offer services to M.L.S. with the goal of reunification.
From October 2007 to January 2008, M.L.S. showed signs of improvement.
M.L.S. moved into her own apartment, obtained employment, provided consistent
drug tests that showed an absence of illegal drugs, and began to attend and
cooperate in parenting and individual therapy sessions.
By the permanency
hearing on January 18, 2008, M.L.S. had had some overnight visits, and DHS
intended to initiate a trial home placement in the near future.
2
M.L.S. claims she was in a bar and someone put something in her drink.
4
However, in late January 2008, M.L.S.’s behavior relapsed. She began to
miss parenting skills and anger management sessions and was not rescheduling.
Her level of cooperation also decreased to the point where she refused to work
with her providers and became hostile and increasingly threatening.
For
example, M.L.S. told a service provider and a DHS worker, “All you mother_____
have another thing coming. This is not over. One day when you least expect it,
it will hit you in your ass.” M.L.S. also mentioned that she felt like taking C.C. to
Mexico. It was also reported that M.L.S. had failed to authorize necessary dental
care for C.C. This was of great importance, because C.C. was born with a cleft
lip, which required follow-up evaluations to monitor her development. In addition,
M.L.S. lost her employment and was in danger of being evicted for failure to pay
her rent.
M.L.S. has still never completed an anger management program.
Despite these concerns, it is generally conceded that M.L.S. and C.C. are
strongly bonded.
By the end of March 2008, DHS reinstated supervised visitation.
On
May 5, 2008, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and a
hearing was held on July 22, 2008. At the hearing, M.L.S. acknowledged that
she was not currently engaged in anger management, and denied that she really
believed there was a need for it. She also testified that she needed to obtain
new housing the following month (although she did not believe it would be
difficult to do). M.L.S. also implicitly acknowledged that she was not ready to
take home C.C. immediately:
Q. Are you asking that [C.C.] be returned to you today?
A. I have never asked for [C.C.] to be returned to me today.
5
On June 19, 2009, the juvenile court entered an order terminating M.L.S.’s
parental rights.3 M.L.S. has appealed.
The scope of review in termination of parental rights cases is de novo. In
re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). We give weight to the juvenile court’s
factual findings, but are not bound by them. Id.; Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(2)(g).
M.L.S. first argues that the State failed to prove that the child at the
present time could not be returned to her custody.
See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(f)(4). The State must prove the grounds for termination by clear
and convincing evidence. In re T.P., 757 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008).
Several unanswered concerns remain about M.L.S.’s ability to provide for C.C.’s
needs. M.L.S.’s participation in services provided by DHS has been sporadic,
most notably her failure to complete anger management therapy. Further, M.L.S.
continues to be unable to maintain consistent housing and employment. M.L.S.
has also been unable to consistently provide for C.C.’s medical needs regarding
her cleft lip. Finally, M.L.S. acknowledged at the hearing to some extent that she
was not ready to have C.C. returned to her. Thus, the record shows clear and
convincing evidence that the child cannot presently be returned to M.L.S.’s
custody.
In addition, M.L.S. argues that termination is not in C.C.’s best interests.
See In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994) (noting that even when the
statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to terminate parental
rights must reflect the child’s best interests). While we agree that there is a bond
3
From the record before us, it is not clear why there was a hiatus between the July 22,
2008 termination hearing and the June 19, 2009 termination order.
6
between M.L.S. and C.C., this consideration does not outweigh a child’s need for
a safe and permanent home. J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 801 (Cady, J., concurring
specially) (stating “a child’s safety and . . . need for a permanent home [are] the
defining elements in a child’s best interests”). At the time of the hearing, C.C.
was nearly five years old and had been out of M.L.S.’s care for over fifteen
months. When a parent is incapable of changing to allow the children to return
home, termination is necessary. In re T.T., 541 N.W.2d 552, 557 (Iowa Ct. App.
1995); see also In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990) (stating “children
simply cannot wait for responsible parenting”). We conclude that termination is in
C.C.’s best interests.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
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.
