IN THE INTEREST OF A.P., Minor Child, A.J.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-726 / 09-1120
Filed September 17, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF A.P.,
Minor Child,
A.J.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P.
Strausser, District Associate Judge.
Mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights
to her son. AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Lerner, Muscatine Legal Services, Muscatine, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Gary Allison, County Attorney, and Korie L. Shippee, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Esther Dean, Muscatine, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Angela appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to
one of her sons, A.P. She contends the court erred in determining, (1) there was
clear and convincing evidence to support grounds for termination, and (2) that
the State made reasonable efforts to reunify Angela with A.P. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS. A.P. was born in October of
2001. He came to the attention of the Department of Human Services in April of
2007 when his older brother was admitted to a hospital for mental health
concerns. Voluntary services were initiated and included increased supervision
in the home, safety planning, more consistent parenting, and mental health
treatment for the mother, Angela, and her three children, including A.P. The
children were removed from the home in October 2007, after Angela attempted
suicide while caring for the children. The children were adjudicated children in
need of assistance (CINA) in December of 2007. A.P. was placed in a foster
home.
At the time A.P. was removed from the home, he acted infant-like although
he was six years old. He was fairly non-verbal and often crawled like a baby or
acted like a cat. He struggled with encopresis and enuresis and wore pull-up
diapers. He was unwilling or unable to dress himself and Angela or an older
sister would change him. Dr. Resmiye Oral from the University of Iowa Hospitals
and Clinics Child Assessment Center performed a psychological evaluation of
A.P. on January 18, 2008. The doctor concluded there were significant concerns
that emotional abuse and neglect caused medical and mental health problems
3
for the children. She noted Angela‟s treatment of A.P. caused his emotional and
developmental problems. She recommended additional services for the children,
including play therapy, and suggested the children have no visitation with Angela
for three months. In the doctor‟s opinion, Angela did not understand the effects
her mental illness had on the children.
Angela cooperated with the services the Department of Human Services
offered. She completed substance abuse treatment and attends AA meetings.
She has been sober since November 2007. She sees a therapist each week and
completed participation in a group for persons with borderline personality
disorder.
Despite Angela‟s improvement, professionals involved in the case
remained concerned about Angela‟s ability to parent. The social worker and
Angela‟s therapist reported that Angela lacked insight into how her mental illness
has caused harm to the children. Professionals found Angela continued to allow
her mental health needs to impact the children emotionally and she does not find
herself accountable for the damage caused to the children.
A permanency hearing was held in October 2008. Angela requested, and
the Department of Human Services recommended, that she be given six
additional months to work toward reunification. The district court refused the
request and ordered that a petition for termination of parental rights be filed with
regard to A.P. We affirmed this decision. See In re A.P., No. 08-1997 (Iowa Ct.
App. Mar. 11, 2009).
By March 2009, Angela had two supervised visits with A.P. per week,
each two hours in duration. During visits Angela often made A.P. something to
4
eat and had an age appropriate activity planned. The worker noted no safety
concerns were present in the home and Angela would use appropriate direction
toward A.P. when he misbehaved.
continued to report concerns however.
The Department of Human Services
It noted that Angela did not initially
accept her older son‟s report of sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by the older
sister. Although Angela stated she would ensure the older sister would not be
left alone with the sons, the Department expressed doubts. It reported that the
older sister had her own apartment but would spend time at Angela‟s daily and
often spent the night there. The Department also reported that Angela did not
accurately measure her children‟s feelings, talked with the children about adult
issues, and relied on her children as her support system. It also noted that
although Angela appears stable at times, there are also times when she has
difficulty regulating her emotions, which could stem from her borderline
personality disorder. It explained that it is difficult to determine when Angela is
being truthful or dishonest.
A.P.‟s development progressed when he was placed in foster care. He
quickly learned to dress himself and only had isolated instances of encopresis
and enuresis, most often occurring during visitations with Angela. By February
2009, A.P. had made improvement in communicating his feelings and emotions
but remained vulnerable because of his delayed communication development.
Even after Angela‟s participation in services, the Department found the children
remained at risk if placed with Angela. The March 6, 2009 case progress report
states “[t]he threat of emotional abuse remains due to the years of prior abuse
5
and the abundance of previous founded abuse reports . . . .”
terminate Angela‟s rights to A.P. was filed on March 19, 2009.
A petition to
The State
asserted there were grounds to terminate Angela‟s rights under Iowa Code
sections 232.116(1)(e), (f), (k), and (l) (2007). The district court did not find clear
and convincing evidence supporting termination under sections 232.116(1)(e),
(k), or (l), and dismissed the petition as to those grounds. The district court did
find clear and convincing evidence to support termination under section
232.116(1)(f).1 Angela appeals, contending there is not clear and convincing
evidence to support the termination and the State did not use reasonable efforts
to reunify her with A.P.
II. SCOPE OF REVIEW. Our scope of review in termination cases is de
novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005). We review the facts
and law and adjudicate rights anew. In re H.G., 601 N.W.2d 84, 85 (Iowa 1999).
The State must prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing
evidence. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). “Clear and convincing
evidence is evidence that 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) (quoting Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa Ct. App.
1983)). We give weight to the fact findings of the juvenile court but are not bound
by them. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000).
III.
MERITS.
Under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), a court may
terminate a parent‟s rights to a child if the court finds
1
The father‟s rights were also terminated because the court found he had abandoned
A.P. under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b). The father has not appealed this ruling.
6
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the
child‟s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for
the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time
the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child‟s parents as
provided in section 232.102.
Angela argues there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the
termination. For evidence she notes the juvenile court found there was not clear
and convincing evidence to support the termination on more specific grounds
provided in sections 232.116(1)(e), (k), or (l), and instead had to rely on the
“catch-all” provision of section (f) because the State had a weak case.
argument is unpersuasive.
This
The State only needs to prove one ground for
termination. In re R.R.K, 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (stating that
we only need to find grounds for termination under one section of 232.116 to
affirm the termination). The fact that the juvenile court found the other grounds
not supported by clear and convincing evidence does not mean there is a lack of
evidence to support termination under section (f). Furthermore, it is not important
whether the juvenile court terminated Angela‟s rights under a more specific
provision or under a more general section. A parent‟s rights can be terminated
on any of the grounds listed.
Angela asserts there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the
termination but she does not contest the Department‟s reports that the children
cannot be returned to her care without suffering adjudicatory harm at this time.
A.P. has been out of the home for nearly two years with no trial period of
7
returning to the mother‟s care. Her visits with A.P. have not advanced beyond
the supervised stage.
In determining whether termination is appropriate, we must consider what
the future holds for the child if returned to the parent. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d
170, 172 (Iowa 1997). “When making this decision, we look to the parents‟ past
performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of
providing in the future.” Id. In considering the mother‟s past performance as an
indicator of her future ability to parent, we note the mother‟s older two children
have serious behavioral and emotional problems that probably stem from years
of neglect and emotional abuse.2
We believe there is clear and convincing
evidence to support the termination of Angela‟s parental rights to A.P. and affirm
the juvenile court.
Angela also argues the State did not prove that reasonable reunification
efforts were made. Prior to terminating a parent‟s rights, the State must provide
reasonable services in an effort to preserve the family unit.
In re H.H., 528
N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995); In re T.C., 522 N.W.2d 106, 108 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1994).
Angela contends when the court ordered that a petition for
termination of parental rights be filed, that the tenor of the case changed and no
further reunification efforts were made. She does not specify what additional
services should have been offered. The district court found reasonable efforts to
2
Angela‟s daughter purportedly struggles with substance abuse, mental health issues,
and allegedly has sexually abused the older son. The older son has cut himself, which
he stated he learned from Angela. The older son also has a history of starting fires and
killing small animals. Angela‟s daughter is no longer under the Department‟s care as
she has aged out of the system. Angela‟s older son was removed from a foster home
and placed in a residential treatment facility because of his behavioral problems.
8
reunify were made and Angela progressed considerably through some services,
specifically in the treatment of her mental health and substance abuse.
However, the district court also found that visitations after the permanency
hearing could not be increased because during previous attempts to increase
visitation, A.P. exhibited anxiety and trauma. This finding is supported by the
record. “At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights
and needs of the parents.” In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App.
1997). A.P. needs permanency and a safe home environment. Angela has been
provided numerous services to assist in reunification. Nonetheless she cannot
resume custody of A.P. at this time. We therefore affirm the juvenile court‟s
termination of Angela‟s parental rights.
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.
