IN THE INTEREST OF G.M.F., Minor Child, N.L.J.W., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-881 / 09-1431
Filed November 12, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF G.M.F.,
Minor Child,
N.L.J.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane
Sokolovske, Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Martha McMinn, Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Dewey Sloan,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Amanda Van Wyhe, Sioux City, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.
2
DANILSON, J.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her nine-month-old daughter, G.M.F. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
G.M.F.’s removal from the mother’s care on January 16, 2009, occurred
less than a month after her birth. G.M.F.’s removal was due to the mother’s lack
of parenting skills and inability to appropriately care for G.M.F. At the time of
removal, the mother was seventeen-years-old and under the custody of the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) herself. The mother moved out of her
mother’s home in October or November 2006 and came to the attention of DHS
in May 2007, when living arrangements at her grandmother’s were not working
out. The mother was suspended from school due to assaultive behaviors, used
drugs and alcohol, associated with inappropriate peers, and was sexually active
without regard to the consequences of her actions. In September 2007, the
mother was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA).
In June 2008, during her pregnancy with G.M.F., the mother was placed at
the Iowa Juvenile Home for her own safety and the safety of the unborn child.
This placement was due to the mother’s continued instability and irresponsible
behaviors. The mother remained at the Iowa Juvenile Home until mid-December
2008, at which time she entered family foster care. G.M.F. was born several
weeks later, and the mother remained in family foster care with G.M.F. During
this time, the mother yelled at G.M.F., told her to “shut up,” and placed her in a
car seat and then slammed the car seat on the floor.
The mother ignored
G.M.F.’s physical and emotional needs and refused to listen to parenting advice.
3
The mother had unrealistic expectations for G.M.F. and exhibited no nurturing
skills. The mother got upset when she wanted to sleep but G.M.F. was awake,
and ignored G.M.F. when she needed to be changed or fed.1
The mother did not resist G.M.F.’s removal. She thereafter advised the
juvenile court she was “standing silent” with regard to G.M.F.’s CINA adjudication
on March 5, 2009. G.M.F. continued in family foster care with the same family,
where she has remained.
The mother entered a shelter.
The mother was
granted supervised visits with G.M.F. twice a week. The mother consistently
failed to attend visits, sometimes without reason.
The mother progressively
missed more and more visits with G.M.F. nearing the time of the termination
hearing. On the visits she attended, the mother acted appropriately with G.M.F.
for the most part, but repeatedly had to be reminded how to do routine tasks,
such as filling a bottle with the correct ratios of water and formula.
The mother failed to improve her parenting skills and resisted help and
services that were offered to her. She failed to comply with the family case plan
expectations. She did not find stable employment or housing. She worked at
several fast food restaurants after G.M.F.’s birth, but quit one job and was fired
from another. With regard to housing, the mother stayed at her mother’s home
for awhile, and her belongings are still there, but then she moved in with a friend.
The mother reported that she left her mother’s home because her brother told
her that she was going to get kicked out.
1
The mother and G.M.F. stayed at two different foster homes during the weeks after
G.M.F.’s birth and prior to her removal: for the most part the mother and G.M.F. lived at
the foster home the mother had lived in since mid-December, but they also stayed at a
respite home for a few days. Both homes reported the mother’s lack of parenting skills
and her endangerment of G.M.F.
4
The mother suffers from depression and takes prescribed medication;
however, she failed to consistently attend therapy or meet with her psychiatrist.
The mother became pregnant again (by a different man than G.M.F.’s father) and
indicated she wanted to have an abortion.
She reported the father is from
Mississippi and just moved to Iowa. The mother further indicated that the father
is abusive toward her.
In July 2009, the State filed a termination petition.
After a contested
hearing, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights on September 10,
2009, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (h) (2009).2
The
mother now appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We review 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 child. Id.
III. Reasonable Efforts.
The mother contests the basis for the initial removal and adjudication of
G.M.F. She alleges DHS placed her with G.M.F. in a foster home where the
foster mother hoped to adopt G.M.F., which hindered her ability to parent G.M.F.
The mother claims the foster mother reported false allegations, which prompted
her removal from the home.
2
Paternity testing confirmed the father of G.M.F., but he has not contested these
proceedings. His parental rights were also terminated, and he does not appeal.
5
The mother is essentially arguing the State failed to make reasonable
efforts to eliminate the need for continued removal and to return G.M.F. to her
care. A parent’s challenge to services by the state should be made when they
are offered, not when termination of parental rights is sought after services have
failed to remedy a parent’s deficiencies. In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2005). The mother fails to indicate that she requested or otherwise
challenged the adequacy of services prior to the termination hearing.
conclude this issue has been waived.
As the juvenile court noted:
The mother has a long history of emotional and behavioral
problems. She receives social security disability as a result of her
mental health problems and has been hospitalized in the past at
Brentwood Behavioral Health and Whitfield Behavioral Health to
stabilize her mental health. She stated at that time that she “hears
things and hallucinates a lot.” She has previously been diagnosed
with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder with
Psychotic Features, Mild Mental Retardation, Borderline
Intelligence, and Depressive Disorder NOS. The mother has never
participated in services sufficient or consistent enough to address
her mental health needs, including medication management.
The mother has limited knowledge of child development.
She has refused the advice or assistance of the foster mother and
service providers in an effort to reunify her with G.M.F. The mother
was offered numerous visitations with G.M.F., but never took full
advantage of those visits. The mother would be a no show or
would cancel visits. A plethora of services was offered/provided to
the mother as a result of her adjudication as a Child in Need of
Assistance. She failed to utilize those services. No further services
are available that could be offered/provided to the mother, that
have not already been offered/provided, to correct the issues that
resulted in G.M.F.’s removal.
The mother does what she wants, when she wants. She has
refused to take any responsibility for her actions which resulted in
G.M.F.’s removal from her care. She continues to blame others for
all that has happened. She is unable to provide for G.M.F.,
emotionally, physically or financially, at this time and is unlikely to
fulfill those needs at any time in the foreseeable future. G.M.F. has
We
6
never been returned to the mother’s care since her removal on
January 16, 2009.
We are convinced that G.M.F.’s interests are best served by terminating
the mother’s parental rights and continuing G.M.F.’s placement in a safe and
stable home. By the time of the termination hearing, G.M.F. had been removed
from the mother’s care for more than seven months, and she was less than eight
months old. Although we recognize G.M.F. was in the mother’s care for only a
short time, we cannot say the removal was unreasonable when the mother’s
behavior endangered G.M.F. and she was completely unable to care for G.M.F.’s
needs.
The mother has demonstrated years of mental and emotional instability,
reckless behavior, and failure to comply with services provided to her.
The
mother continues to have many unresolved mental health, parenting, and
responsibility issues, and G.M.F. cannot be returned to her care.
The law
demands patience to allow parents to remedy their deficiencies, but that time
must be limited, because the delay may translate into intolerable hardship for the
children.
In re C.D., 524 N.W.2d 432, 435 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
termination of the mother’s parental rights is in G.M.F.’s best interests.
AFFIRMED.
We find
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.
