IN THE INTEREST OF D.M. and S.M., Minor Children, V.L.M., Mother, Appellant, G.A.M., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-732 / 09-1038
Filed October 7, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF D.M. and S.M.,
Minor Children,
V.L.M., Mother,
Appellant,
G.A.M., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J.
Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal the district court order terminating their
parental rights to their two children. AFFIRMED.
Douglas Q. Davis, II of Kintzinger Law Firm, P.L.C., Dubuque, for
appellant mother.
Leslie Blair of Blair & Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant 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.
Jamie Splinter of Splinter Law Office, Dubuque, for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mansfield, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Two children, born in 2000 and 2003, were placed in foster care for a
variety of reasons, including domestic abuse and physical abuse and concerns
that the parents could not effectively handle the behaviors of their older child.
Eventually, the parents’ rights to these children were terminated. Both parents
appeal the termination ruling. They assert that clear and convincing evidence
does not support the ground for termination cited by the juvenile court. See Iowa
Code § 232.116(1)(f) (2009). They specifically challenge two elements of that
ground.
I.
Section 232.116(1)(f) requires proof of several elements, including proof
that the children could not be returned to the parents’ custody.
Id.
§ 232.116(1)(f)(4). Both parents effectively acknowledged that this element was
satisfied.
When asked whether the mother was ready for the older child to come
home, the mother answered, “I don’t believe it is in [this child’s] best interest.”
She continued,
I would love to see her return home, but I do not see that as
being a possibility due to the severeness of her problems . . . I
would like to see [the child] stay where she is because she is
getting what she needs.
When asked if she wished to have more time for reunification with this child, she
responded, “I don’t foresee that as being able to be reached in a reasonable
time.” With respect to the younger child, the mother essentially admitted that an
immediate return of the child was impractical, stating, “I would love to see the
time to implement her coming back into the home.”
3
Similarly, when the father was asked if he thought he could immediately
parent the older child, he answered, “No, ma’am.” He continued, “I would love to
sit her[e] and say yes, but there is just so many issues surrounding—not just [this
child] but the way sometimes I perceive her actions . . . .” As for the younger
child, the best he could ask for was more time to facilitate reunification.
There is no question that both parents complied with services and made
progress towards addressing some of the concerns that led to the children’s
removal. However, the father still had unresolved issues that, according to his
therapist, would preclude the children from being safely returned to his care and
the mother, who was disabled and receiving Supplemental Security Income
benefits would have required significant ongoing support and services to parent
the children safely. On our de novo review, we conclude that there was clear
and convincing evidence to support the fourth element of section 232.116(1)(f).
See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (noting that review of
termination proceedings is de novo).
II.
Iowa Code section 232.116(f) also implicates a requirement that the
Department of Human Services make reasonable efforts toward reunification.
See id. “The State must show reasonable efforts as a part of its ultimate proof
the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent.” Id. at 493. The
parents contend this requirement was not satisfied.
The department furnished an abundance of reunification services,
including weekly supervised visitation, couples counseling, and individual therapy
for each of the family members. As the mother testified, “We have wrapped
ourselves in services.” The father also itemized the services he received and
4
acknowledged that at least two of the professionals with whom he worked “really
helped us out.”
On this record, we conclude the department satisfied its
reasonable efforts mandate.
We affirm the termination of the mother and father’s parental rights to
these children.
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.
