IN THE INTEREST OF R.S., S.S., and K.S., Minor Children, T.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-775 / 09-1186
Filed October 7, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF R.S., S.S., and K.S.,
Minor Children,
T.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to three
children. AFFIRMED.
Donna Schauer of Schauer Law Office, Adel, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman and Kathrine MillerTodd, Assistant Attorneys General, Wayne Reisetter, County Attorney, and Sean
Weiser, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Steve Clarke of Des Moines Public Defender‟s Office, Des Moines, for
minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mansfield, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
T.S. appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children, R.S.,
born in 2003, S.S., born in 2005, and K.S., born in 2007. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings.
This termination of parental rights stems from child-in-need-of-assistance
(CINA) proceedings after a fourth child abuse report to the Iowa Department of
Human Services (DHS) concerning T.S. and her children. Reports in January
2006, May 2006, and October 2007, were founded based on failure to provide
adequate shelter. The fourth report resulted after R.S., S.S., and K.S. were
removed by ex parte order on January 4, 2008. T.S. had been committed to a
hospital with suicidal ideations and left the children with a seventy-six-year-old1
man who was unable to care for them due to his medical conditions. The house
in which the S. family had lived was uninhabitable.2 While in the hospital, T.S.
agreed to the children‟s placement in foster care.
The children were adjudicated CINA in an April 11, 2008 order. Due to the
condition of T.S.‟s home, supervised visits took place elsewhere. T.S. did attend
supervised visits with her children twice a week for two hours.
T.S. underwent a psychological evaluation on April 28 and 29, 2008, with
psychologist Dr. William Martin. Dr. Martin prepared a lengthy report in which he
1
The file refers to this gentleman variously as seventy-six or seventy-eight years old.
T.S. would provide only a first name of the gentleman.
2
It appears from this record that T.S. and her grandfather own many rental houses. T.S.
is described as a “hoarder” and has a pattern of living in a place with her children and
grandfather until it becomes unsanitary and uninhabitable and then moves into another
unit. The fact that T.S. has many units available to her had—on more than one
occasion—created difficulty for DHS in attempting to determine the welfare of the
children.
3
stated, “[m]ost notable in the test results was the consistent evidence of denial,
lack of insight, and lack of willingness to supply much detailed information.” He
also noted:
Very significantly, this patient indicated that secretly when
her children are returned to her, she hoped to have another child.
This statement is very important and reflects the profound lack of
insight evidenced in [T.S.‟s] decision-making. Even with the
disclosure of an elderly friend of her grandfather‟s urinating and
defecating on furniture, she apparently cannot understand the
negative implication for her children. Further, she apparently sees
no need to parent children in a stable environment . . . .
....
It is also worth pointing out that while the patient reported a
life-long interest in raising, caring for, and the sale of animals, she
found ways to rationalize the neglect which required the removal of
most of these animals from her care. The lack of concern about the
animals along with the [lack of concern for] optimal development of
her three young children is alarming. This assessment has
identified a longstanding personality disorder in [T.S.]. Diagnosis of
a personality disorder reflects habitual and maladaptive methods of
relating, behaving, thinking, and feeling.
Unfortunately, the
patient‟s narcissistic and anti-social features indicate that meeting
her own needs are primary, even though she expresses a desire to
have her children in her care.
. . . Her profound level of defensiveness, lack of insight, and
obvious lack of cooperation in dealing with agencies who are
attempting to ensure the health and welfare of her children does not
bode well for their optimal development. Certainly during their
formative years especially, children require structure and
consistency, something that is obviously not present in [T.S.]‟s
approach to parenting, work, and relationships.
(Emphasis added.)
Dr. Martin recommended treatment, but noted that
individuals similar to T.S. “are highly resistive to engaging in supportive
psychotherapy.” T.S. declined the offer of therapy.
Progress report notes from visit supervisors indicate T.S. attended
supervised visits, but often failed to feed K.S. or check her diaper during the
4
visits. One July 15, 2008 note by case coordinator Nicole Haberl under the
heading “current or potential risks” reads:
[T.S.] has been recommended for mental health therapy, she
refused to go. [T.S.] refuses for the department to hold a family
team meeting. [T.S.] has not been able to provide a safe, clean
home for children since the open[ing] of the case. [T.S.] doesn‟t
respond or act on any interventions that this worker or the safety
support staff educates her about.
A dispositional hearing on August 18, 2008, continued children‟s
placement with DHS with twice weekly visits at a location other than the mother‟s
home. T.S., through counsel, reported that she had received and reviewed a list
of twelve items that needed to be completed before visits could progress to being
held in the home. T.S. hoped to complete those items “within the next week or
so,” anticipating that supervised visits in the home could then progress to
unsupervised visits, and ultimately the return of the children.
A review hearing took place on October 15, 2008. DHS sought to reduce
visits due to T.S.‟s lack of progress. T.S. argued against the reduced visitation,
contending that the items remaining on the home improvement list did not pertain
to areas of the house where the children would be during visits. The court ruled
that visits would be reduced to once per week at a location other than the home
and asked that pictures of the house be provided “in the next couple of weeks”
for the court‟s review.
T.S. also argued that she was receiving inadequate parenting education
during the supervised visits. She acknowledged that she had declined DHS‟s
offered therapy. Acknowledging that “it‟s difficult to teach parenting skills at the
same time a visitation is going on,” the court ordered parenting classes be
5
offered. The court asked that a review hearing be held in November to address
specific issues.
On November 19, 2008, the court heard T.S.‟s continuing request for
expanded visitation. Pictures of the S. home were presented and DHS social
worker Marcia Hoffman, assigned to the S. family since January 2008, testified
about her ongoing safety concerns with the home.
DHS recommended that
supervised visits remain as set: away from the home, one time per week for two
hours. The children‟s guardian ad litem asked that visits remain as set and that
T.S. be required to maintain the safety and suitability of the house for two months
before visitation be moved there. T.S. asked that visits be moved to her home
and be increased to twice a week. The court asked for a report in two weeks
indicating that the remainder of the work had been completed on the house and
that it was safe for children; the court also asked for recommendations for a
transition plan3 concerning visits.
On December 18, 2008, DHS service providers toured the house and
“agreed that the home was safe and clean at the present time, however, it would
need to remain that way for a period of time before the supervised family
3
In a December 30, 2008 letter described at a later hearing, the following transition plan
was presented:
Specifically, that would involve the completion of the parenting classes. It
looks like that if successfully completed would end on March 19th. If the
home was maintained the visits could be increased per the schedule on
April 1st, and that would be held at the mother‟s home, and if those
continued to go well they could be semi supervised as of approximately
May 1st, again, that depends on how things are going, and unsupervised
visitation would be looked at as of June 1st this year.
6
interactions could be returned to the home.” Weekly drop-in visits to assess the
home would occur.
On January 13, 2009, the State filed a petition to terminate T.S.‟s parental
rights.
On January 14, 2009, a permanency hearing commenced, but the State
moved to continue the remainder of the hearing to allow T.S. to present evidence
on her request for an additional six months to work toward reunification. Further
hearing was set for February 4 at which evidence regarding permanency and
termination would be taken.
At the February 4th hearing, T.S.‟s attorney informed the court that T.S.
had maintained a safe, clean house since December 30, she was attending
parenting classes, and “continu[ed] to do everything she was asked.” The court
ordered visits to continue at DHS discretion, “and if the circumstances are such
that DHS sees the ability to vary from that plan and proceed to the next stage
sooner, I would encourage that to happen.”
On February 17, 2009, T.S. gave birth to C.S.
On February 16, 2009, more than one year after her children were
removed from T.S.‟s care, her case worker summarized the situation as follows.
[T.S.] has not yet proved that she can maintain a safe and clean
home for a significant period of time. She continues to have
serious financial difficulties and lack of a consistent income. [T.S.]
continues to attend the . . . parenting class each week but the
instructor reports that she refuses to be an active participant in the
class and shows no interest in the class‟s teachings, discussion or
activities. [T.S.] continues to refuse individual therapy or [family
team meetings]. Because of the severity of the children‟s behavior
7
problems[4] and T.S.‟s lack of parenting skills, Social Worker does
not feel T.S. is capable of safely parenting her three children at this
time.
In a letter dated February 18, 2009, the therapist for R.S. and S.S., Peggy
Clark, outlined the ongoing behavioral concerns reported by the foster parents—
including severe temper tantrums, the girls‟ “significant attachment issues,” and
the themes of the girls‟ play therapy. She summarized:
These play themes are not healthy normal “play for life
rehearsal” as is observed in other unaffected children. However,
[these themes] are indicative of children with emotional concerns.
Also, I have seen little progress throughout the therapy process.
Themes and roles have remained consistently the same,
demonstrating very little change in their internal worldviews. This is
often the case when children are internally fearful of their
safety. . . .
Upon reviewing the issues of this case, I would at this time
recommend that termination of parental rights be pursued for all
three of the [S.] children. I do not make this recommendation lightly
however, given the fact that their mother has not been able to
demonstrate that she can provide physical and emotional stability
and safety after a year and that these children are at a very critical
period in their development. . . . It is already apparent that the [S.]
children have a compromised attachment quality, which is being
expressed through their unhealthy behaviors and interactions as
well as in the therapy process. Without proper care and stability,
they will continue to struggle with self-esteem/image concerns, trust
in caregivers to care for them and thus use unhealthy means of
meeting self needs. The use of unhealthy means to meet one‟s
emotional needs and unhealthy worldview can then produce long
lasting affects in their relationships throughout their lifetime as well
as a higher propensity for many personality disorders.
The termination hearing was held on March 11, 2009. R.S. and S.S.‟s
therapist testified that they both suffered from attachment disorders and were in
need of a permanent home. She testified that it was likely T.S. also had an
attachment disorder, but even if T.S. were willing to begin therapy now,
4
The older two girls apparently urinated and defecated purposely in inappropriate
places, they displayed inappropriate sexual behaviors, and had intense temper tantrums.
8
“attachment work takes a long time” and it was not reasonable to believe
sufficient progress could be made in the next three to four months to allow the
children to be returned to T.S.
Marcia Hoffman testified:
It‟s a success that she kept her visits, and she did that. It‟s a
success that she attended the parenting classes. It‟s a success
that she does have a home that is safe to live in. But all of those
accomplishments don‟t really mean anything if you attend a
parenting class and you‟re not willing to change or learn, and if you
keep your visits but you still can‟t relate to your children or you‟re
willing to change or you‟re willing to take direction from a person
role modeling appropriate parenting for you.
So there are
successes but it‟s taken 15 months to get there, and, again, I don‟t
think these children can wait for a parent.
Ms. Hoffman also testified there were no services requested that DHS had not
followed through with. Individual therapy had been recommended throughout the
CINA proceedings, parenting classes had been offered, and family team
meetings had been offered. All had been repeatedly declined or consented to
only after court order.
T.S. testified asking for visits to occur in her home. She testified that she
now realized she had problems expressing emotions and hoped that therapy
could help her. She asked for an additional four months to show the court that
she could make changes. T.S. was asked if she had made any requests of DHS
for services that had not been met. She responded:
I have asked to be explained to what other services they could
possibly offer. And it was never explained to me in a way that I
could understand other than just therapy.
Q. But you haven‟t made any specific request? A. No. I
think I did mention medical at one time when I had a really severe
sinus infection, and I know I need glasses.
9
She informed the court that she would not disclose the names of the girls‟
fathers, because she had safety concerns ranging from one father‟s violent
tendencies to other fathers‟ mental health and drug abuse issues. She thought
one father might be dead. T.S.‟s counsel argued in closing that T.S.‟s “newly
discovered” attachment disorder warranted additional time for T.S. to initiate and
participate in counseling.
The court delayed ruling on the termination petition pending notification to
various Indian nations of the possibility that the children might be eligible for
enrollment. Following negative responses from the Indian nations, on July 23,
2009, the court ordered termination of T.S.‟s parental rights to R.S. and S.S.
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2009) (CINA adjudication, parent offered
services, and circumstances continue) and K.S. under section 232.116(1)(h)
(child under three years of age, CINA adjudication, removed from parent‟s
custody for at least six of last twelve months, clear and convincing evidence that
children cannot be returned at the present time).
The court found that
reasonable efforts had been made to eliminate the need for the children‟s
removal, the children could not be returned to her at this time, and that
termination was in their best interests.
T.S. appeals.
She argues reasonable efforts were not made toward
reunification and there is not clear and convincing evidence that the children
cannot be returned to her.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698
N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be proved by
10
clear and convincing evidence. In re T.P., 757 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa Ct. App.
2008). Evidence is clear and convincing when it 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). Our primary concern in termination cases is the
best interests of the children. In re A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa Ct. App.
2007).
III. Discussion.
Iowa Code section 232.102(7) requires DHS to “make every reasonable
effort to return the child to the child‟s home as quickly as possible consistent with
the best interests of the child.” In In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000),
the court explained that “[t]he State must show reasonable efforts as a part of its
ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent.” The
focus of reunification is on the health and safety of the child, and mandates a
permanent home for a child as early as possible. Id.
This record supports a finding that the State made reasonable efforts at
reunification consistent with these children‟s best interests. While we seriously
question whether restricting T.S.‟s visits in October 2008 was necessary for the
children‟s safety or that such a restriction can be viewed as furthering the goal of
reunification,5 the State did provide T.S. with adequate opportunities to
demonstrate her willingness to parent her children keeping paramount their need
for safety. T.S. only consented to services reluctantly. She consented to mental
health treatment at the eleventh hour.
5
T.S. contended she was not offered
A decision to restrict visits seems antithetical to reunification. It is understandable that
parents would distrust the sincerity of the State‟s purported efforts at reunification when
visits are restricted.
11
parenting education, but the record belies the complaint. Moreover, when T.S.
did attend parenting classes, she only minimally participated. “A parent cannot
wait until the eve of termination, after the statutory time periods for reunification
have expired, to begin to express an interest in parenting.” Id. at 495.
“Insight for the determination of the child‟s long-range best interests can
be gleaned from „evidence of the parent‟s past performance for that performance
may be indicative of the quality of the future care that parent is capable of
providing.‟” Id. (quoting In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981)). T.S.
has a long history of resistance to services. Dr. Martin noted that trait in his April
2008 evaluation. We do not believe granting T.S. additional time to address her
mental health issues at this stage in the children‟s lives is either warranted or in
their best interests.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we also conclude there is clear and
convincing evidence supporting the termination of parental rights. These children
are in dire need of stability and cannot presently be returned to T.S. We affirm
the termination of T.S.‟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.
