IN THE INTEREST OF H.R. and A.B., Minor Children, J.A.B., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-727 / 09-1118
Filed September 17, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF H.R. and A.B.,
Minor Children,
J.A.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J.
Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Steven J. Drahozal of Drahozal & Schilling, Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
John Kies of Kies Law Firm, Bellevue, for appellee father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman and Kathrine MillerTodd, Assistant Attorneys General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and Jean
Becker, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Mary Kelley, Dubuque Public Defender, Dubuque, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Julie is the mother of Holly and Amber, who were one and two years old at
the time of the trial. Todd is Holly and Amber’s biological father, though Julie
was married to Jeff at all times relevant to this case.1 Amber and Holly came to
the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) on November 19,
2008, because of allegations that Todd used drugs in front of the children.2 A
domestic altercation between Julie and Todd on that date resulted in Julie’s
arrest, leaving the two children in Todd’s care overnight. During a home visit by
DHS the next day, Todd admitted he could not care for the children, and
consented to their removal.
The children were temporarily placed with their
maternal grandmother.
On November 25, 2008, drug testing results for Julie, Amber, and Holly
were positive for cocaine. The juvenile court entered an ex parte removal order,
placing the children in foster care. Following a hearing on December 3, 2008,
the juvenile court continued the out-of-home placement of the children.
At the time of removal, the children were in poor physical condition. Both
girls were behind in their immunizations and had lice, scabies, and rashes and
scratches on their bodies. Holly had a large sore on her neck, and her navel was
infected. She suffered from hypotonia in her neck, and as a result, her head was
tilted to one side. Amber’s teeth were rotting to the extent surgery was required
to remove her four front teeth.
1
2
Both children also appeared to have
Julie’s parental rights to Holly and Amber are the only rights at issue on appeal.
Throughout this opinion, references to “the children” refer to Holly and Amber.
3
developmental delays.
On January 28, 2009, the children were adjudicated
children in need of assistance.
At the onset of this case, Julie was referred for domestic violence
counseling, a substance abuse evaluation, and a mental health evaluation. Julie
was also to submit to random drug testing and find employment.
DHS
caseworker Angi Becker informed Julie she needed to find alternative housing.
At the time, Julie was living at her mother’s home, which Becker determined was
not a safe environment for the children because of the number of individuals
living there and remodeling being done to the house.
Julie did not follow through on finding domestic violence counseling. She
obtained a mental health evaluation after roughly two months, but she disputed
the diagnosis and failed to follow through with any treatment. She was slow in
finding substance abuse help, but began receiving support from Genevieve
Balajadia, a substance abuse counselor at Substance Abuse Services Center,
roughly three months after DHS suggested she do so. Balajadia reported seeing
minimal progress in Julie throughout the case.
Julie was unable to find employment during the pendency of this case.
She testified that she interviewed with two employers, but was denied work
because of her schedule.
Julie was injured and wore a leg cast for a few
months, but Becker testified that she was unaware of any efforts Julie had made
to find employment since the removal of her cast. Becker also testified that Julie
was dishonest about actions she had taken.
Julie did not obtain alternate housing despite DHS’s repeated insistence
that her mother’s home was not appropriate for the children. She applied for a
4
housing voucher so she could find an apartment of her own, but she was denied
because of her criminal history. She made some attempts to seek housing at the
Maria House, but failed to attend necessary appointments because she had
decided to stay at her mother’s house. At the time of trial, Julie still lived at her
mother’s house.
Julie submitted to random drug testing in the form of sweat patches. Of
her seven sweat patches, two fell off and were therefore considered positive
because the chain of custody had been broken. The other five were negative.
Julie received support from Mari Lea Riley at Lutheran Services in Iowa,
who provided individual parenting skill and therapy services. Julie was supposed
to have weekly visits with Riley, but was inconsistent in her attendance, making
only six sessions from January to May of 2009. Riley reported that Julie was
uncooperative and did not accept responsibility for her situation.
Julie was scheduled to have weekly supervised visits with her children, but
was inconsistent in attending those visits, missing two visits in February, two
visits in March, three visits in April, and one visit in May of 2009. She also
missed visits with her children for just over one month between December of
2008 and January of 2009 because she failed to show proof that she had been
tested for scabies, as required by DHS to protect the children’s health. However,
when Julie did attend visits, workers reported that she was very interactive and
nurturing with the children and that she provided appropriate attention and
affection.
On May 18, 2009, the State filed a petition to terminate Julie’s parental
rights.
After trial, the juvenile court terminated Julie’s rights to both children
5
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2009). Julie appeals, arguing: (1)
the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence, and (2) termination of her parental rights is not in the
children’s best interests.
II. Standard of Review
We review a termination of parental rights de novo.
In re Z.H., 740
N.W.2d 648, 650-51 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). Grounds for termination must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. Id.
III. Termination of Parental Rights
We agree with the juvenile court that clear and convincing evidence
supported termination of Julie’s parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).
This section provides that termination is appropriate when: (1) the child is three
years of age or younger; (2) the child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance; (3) the child has been removed from the physical custody of the
child’s parents for the last six consecutive months; and (4) there is clear and
convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s
parents. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). The first three elements are not disputed.
As to the fourth element, the State presented clear and convincing
evidence that the children cannot be returned to Julie’s custody at this time. Julie
has failed to take the steps necessary to provide her children with a safe and
stable home. She has made little effort to find employment or proper housing.
She testified that she was comfortable at her mother’s house, and while she
planned to move out “eventually,” she failed to understand why her children could
6
not live there.
She did not follow up with her mental health evaluation or
domestic violence treatment, as recommended by DHS. More importantly, Julie
attended the weekly visits with her children only sporadically, canceling visits for
various reasons, including being sick, having court appearances, and
transportation problems.
“The future can be gleaned from evidence of the
parents’ past performance and motivations.” In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662
(Iowa 2000). Julie has shown little motivation to make the changes necessary to
regain custody of her children.
Further, multiple care providers testified that Julie failed to accept
responsibility for her actions, including the physical condition the children were in
when they were removed. Becker testified that she did not believe the children
could safely be returned to their mother because Julie had failed to make any
sustainable progress in areas that would keep the children safe. Riley reported,
“Julie is only minimally able to provide for her own needs and could not care for
her children at this time.” “A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home
are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best interests.” J.E.,
723 N.W.2d at 801 (Cady, J., concurring specially). Julie cannot provide for her
children’s safety at this time or in the foreseeable future.
Julie and the children previously were involved with DHS from February of
2007 to April of 2008 because of Julie’s issues with substance abuse, domestic
violence, self-sufficiency, and stability. Those issues were all still present at the
time of trial, after another seven months of services. Given Julie’s refusal to
accept responsibility and make positive changes, it is unlikely that the children
could be safely returned to Julie in the near future. Riley testified that Julie has
7
been unwilling to “make any plans or change her life in any way to prevent” the
children’s prior medical problems and similar developmental delays from
reoccurring. We agree with the children’s guardian ad litem that Julie’s “meager
efforts toward reunification do not give anyone confidence that she will be able to
completely raise these girls to adulthood.”
For the above-listed reasons, we also believe it is in the children’s best
interests that Julie’s parental rights be terminated. Allowing the children to return
to their mother’s care would deprive them of the safety and stability they need
and deserve.
“[P]atience with parents can soon translate into intolerable
hardship for their children.” In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). A
review of the record shows that termination of Julie’s parental rights is in Holly
and Amber’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.
