IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.L., B.A.-A. Jr., and A.C.A.-A., Minor Children, A.R.W., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-776 / 09-1209
Filed October 7, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.L., B.A.-A. Jr., and A.C.A.-A.,
Minor Children,
A.R.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian L.
Michaelson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her
three children. AFFIRMED.
Maxine Buckmeier, Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Robert Pierson, Sioux City, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Dewey Sloan,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Chad Thompson, Kingsley, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
April appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights
to A.A., B.A., and A.L. pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f),
and (h) (2009). On appeal, April challenges the termination of her parental rights
pursuant to section 232.116(1)(d) and asserts that termination was not in her
children’s best interests. We affirm.
April is the mother of A.A. (born 2003), B.A. (born 2004), A.L. (born 2005),
and D.W. (born 2007). In January 2008, the children came to the attention of the
Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). The family had no money or food,
and DHS workers arranged for emergency funding. However, days later April
contacted DHS workers requesting her children be placed in foster care because
she was losing her apartment.
The children were placed in foster care and
subsequently adjudicated to be in need of assistance.
For the next four months, April did not find housing. However, in June
2008, with the assistance of DHS, April obtained a three-bedroom apartment.
On June 6, 2008, the children were returned to April on an extended visitation
status. However, DHS soon petitioned for emergency removal of the children
due to the children being exposed to domestic violence and drug use. There
were numerous reports of domestic violence between April and her boyfriend,
Francisco, including assaults and threats with a gun and knife. The children
were also passengers in a car involved in a high speed chase. Francisco also
used drugs and April alleged he was dealing drugs. While April was in jail, she
left the children in Francisco’s care.
September 11, 2008.
The children were again removed
3
After the children’s removal, April continued her relationship with
Francisco despite a no-contact order between them. She had additional contacts
with police regarding her criminal activity, Francisco’s criminal activity, and
domestic violence incidents between April and Francisco. April failed to attend
the next court hearing on October 1, 2008. She also failed to follow through with
her mental health counseling, and her visitation with the children was suspended
for several months.
In November 2008, the juvenile court warned her that her parental rights
would likely be terminated if she continued her relationship with Francisco. Yet,
April chose to continue her relationship with Francisco and did not follow through
with services. In May 2009, April was observed riding on a bike with Francisco.
She pled guilty to violating the no-contact order, although April later claimed she
was not actually with him and had pled guilty on her attorney’s advice.
The State petitioned to terminate April’s parental rights to all four children.
The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska petitioned to transfer jurisdiction of the case
concerning D.W., which relief the district court granted.
See Iowa Code
§ 232B.5(10) (providing for the transfer of jurisdiction to tribal court). Thus, a
hearing was held on the State’s petition to terminate April’s parental rights to
A.A., B.A., and A.L.
At the time of the termination hearing, April had been receiving supervised
visitation with the children, but had cancelled three visits in the two months
preceding the hearing. A DHS worker testified that April was not employed, did
not have housing, had not followed through with mental-health therapy, and had
a relationship with a violent man that was inappropriate for the children. Since
4
June 2008, April had fourteen police contacts involving assault, burglary,
domestic violence, drugs, theft, and violations of a no-contact order. The DHS
worker did concede that April had “very good parenting skills” and that her
children had bonded with her. However, she testified that April was unwilling to
put her children ahead of her affections for Francisco. In her testimony, April was
vague and defensive about her relationship with Francisco:
Q. How long has it been since you’ve seen him?
while. I don’t know.
A. A
On July 27, 2009, the juvenile court terminated April’s parental rights to
A.A., B.A., and A.L. pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(d) (A.A., B.A., and A.L.), (e)
(A.A., B.A., and A.L.), (f) (A.A. and B.A.), and (h) (A.L.). 1
We review termination of parental rights de novo. See In re J.E., 723
N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). On appeal April argues there is not sufficient
evidence to terminate her parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(d).
However, she does not challenge the termination of her parental rights pursuant
to sections 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (h). Thus, we do not need to reach April’s
sufficiency of the evidence argument. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1999) (“When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than
one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the
sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm.”).
Nevertheless, we find sufficient evidence to support the termination of
April’s parental rights. April’s main argument is “she was doing everything [DHS]
had asked of her.” However, April’s own testimony undermines this claim. April
1
The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of the fathers of A.A., B.A., and
A.L. The fathers have not appealed.
5
admitted that she did not follow through with her mental health services, even
though she knew that not doing this therapy kept her away from her children.
When asked what has kept her from seeking work over approximately the last
year and a half, she answered, “I feel there’s no reason to work. I don’t have my
kids. Why should I work?” The evidence thus demonstrates that April has failed
to obtain employment and housing and has failed to follow through with mental
health treatment.
Furthermore, she has continued a relationship that is
dangerous to the children. We find her argument without merit.
April also argues that termination is not in the best interests of the children
because the children were separated into two different foster homes at the time
of the termination hearing. At the time of the hearing DHS had placed A.A. and
A.L. in a foster home and the Winnebago Tribe had placed B.A. and D.W. in
another foster home, but was seeking to find a foster home for all four children.
“There is no indication in the record this issue was raised in the juvenile court.
As a general rule, an issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be raised
for the first time on appeal.” In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct. App.
1994).
Even if the issue were preserved, we find it is in the children’s best
interests that April’s parental rights be terminated, although the children are
separated temporarily or possibly permanently. See id. (stating that although
siblings should be kept together whenever possible, the paramount concern is
the children’s best interests). A DHS worker testified that B.A. had behavioral
problems that stem from not having a permanent home and the violent men that
April exposed him to during his life.
Additionally, A.A. had asked her foster
6
parents to adopt her. The children are in need of a safe and permanent home.
See J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 801 (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating children’s
safety and their need for a permanent home are the defining elements in
determining a child’s best interests).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating
April’s parental rights to A.A., B.A., and A.L.
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.
