IN THE INTEREST OF D.P., Minor Child, B.M., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-876 / 09-1398
Filed November 12, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF D.P.,
Minor Child,
B.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joe E. Smith, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child,
contending (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination and (2)
termination was not in the child’s best interests. AFFIRMED.
Alexandra Nelissen of Nelissen & Juckette, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Michelle Chenoweth,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Barbara Davis, West Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Brandi appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in
2004. She contends (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination and
(2) termination was not in the child’s best interests.
On the first issue, Brandi stipulated that she would not be asking for
custody of the child. Her attorney stated,
There’s no denying that my client is not in a position to resume
custody of the child today, nor in the near future. We’re not
disputing that fact, nor offering any evidence to that issue . . . . The
question, however, in front of this Court is what’s in [the child’s]
best interest.
Brandi confirmed her attorney’s representation:
Q. Do you understand that we have the option to request
that [the child] be returned to you today? A. Yes.
Q. And you instructed me not to litigate or to argue that;
correct? A. Right.
Q. Why? A. Because I know I can’t handle him full time.
Based on this record, we conclude Brandi has not preserved error on her
challenge to the grounds for termination. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d
532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that
issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we
will decide them on appeal.”).
Turning to the second issue, Brandi is correct that the ultimate
consideration in this type of proceeding is the best interests of the child. In re
C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). Brandi argues that a guardianship
would best serve those interests. On our de novo review, we disagree.
Brandi has a mental illness that prevents her from safely parenting the
child if she is not in a highly structured environment or appropriately medicated.
3
She received a battery of services in connection with a proceeding involving
another child, but those services proved insufficient to permit reunification, and
her rights to that child were terminated.
In 2004, after this child was born, the department again became involved
with the family and again provided a host of services, including placement of
Brandi in a supervised apartment.
Brandi left that apartment against the
recommendation of service providers. The child was placed with a foster family
that Brandi knew and trusted.
Brandi made strides towards meeting department expectations but
testified that she expected her child to remain with the foster family until
adulthood. Her sole reason for seeking a guardianship is to maintain her close
bond with him.
There is no question the two share a bond and that severance of the bond
would prove harmful to the child. However, a guardianship is not the answer
given Brandi’s admission that she would never be in a position to assume
custody of the child and the concern for the child’s safety. The best interests of
the child, particularly the child’s safety, outweigh the desire to preserve the
parent-child bond.
It is also possible that the connection between mother and child may
continue even after the termination. The foster mother testified that she is willing
to allow weekly visits, notwithstanding the absence of a legal obligation to do so.
Her openness to these contacts is based on her longstanding relationship with
Brandi and her recognition that the child will suffer if visits are curtailed. While
the department expressed some concern about continued contact at a hearing
4
preceding the termination hearing, no similar objections were voiced at the
termination hearing. Indeed, prior to the hearing, the department facilitated two
or three unsupervised visits per week for six or seven months. Notably, there
was some indication that the child would continue to receive services after the
termination, affording the department a means to monitor his welfare.
We agree with the district court that a guardianship is not in the child’s
best interests. We affirm the termination of Brandi’s parental rights to her child,
born in 2004.
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.
