IN THE INTEREST OF J.K., W.K., III and D.K., Minor Children, G.H.K., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-882 / 09-1346
Filed November 25, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF J.K., W.K., III and D.K.,
Minor Children,
G.H.K., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton
Ploof, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three of her
children. AFFIRMED.
Lauren M. Phelps, Bettendorf, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Gerda C. Lane,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Martha Cox, Davenport, for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three of her
children, born in 2000, 2001, and 2003. She contends (1) termination was not in
the children’s best interests because of the bond they shared with her and the
bond the children shared with each other, (2) the grounds for termination were
not satisfied, (3) the Department of Human Services did not make reasonable
efforts to secure safe and affordable housing, and (4) she was denied due
process because reasonable accommodations were not made for her mental
illness. Our review of these issues is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 (2009).
I.
The ultimate consideration in a termination proceeding is the best
interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
There is no question that the mother shared a close bond with the
children. The department’s case manager conceded this fact stating, “Definitely
you can see the bond. Gladys loves the boys and the boys love Gladys. You
see that at visits.”
Despite this bond, there were obstacles to reunification. The mother had
a history of problems relating to the care of her children that spanned a decade,
involved more than one state welfare agency, and culminated in the termination
of her parental rights to three other children. These problems included a failure
to properly supervise the children and denial of critical care. In a report to the
court, the department noted a “high level for future maltreatment continues to
exist” given the mother’s dependence on sometimes inappropriate individuals for
housing and financial assistance.
3
The mother’s caretaking issues were compounded by her mental health
diagnoses for which she received only sporadic treatment until four months
before the termination hearing. Her instability affected the older two children,
who exhibited behavioral issues that required therapy. As the case manager
testified, “There have been problems with [the mother] being able to control the
visits and the boys taking her direction at visits, especially the extended visits of
four hours.” In sum, a confluence of factors rendered the mother unable to have
the children returned to her care despite the strong bond she shared with them.
See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4) (2009).
We recognize the mother’s situation was only partially of her own making.
Specifically, she had conditions that impeded her efforts to secure employment
but were deemed insufficiently disabling to qualify her for Supplemental Security
Income benefits.
This left her without a source of income to independently
support herself and her family. Nonetheless, at least one of the statutory criteria
for termination was satisfied and there was a real risk that the children’s welfare
would be affected if they were returned to her care. For these reasons, we
conclude termination served the children’s best interests.
We turn to the bond among the siblings. While the youngest child was
separated from the two older children for a period of time, that circumstance
changed in January 2009 when the youngest child joined his older siblings in
their foster home. Accordingly, we conclude severance of the sibling bond is not
an issue.
II. The mother asserts that “[t]he court did not have clear and convincing
evidence that [she] could not resume parenting her children at the time of the
4
hearing or with a reasonable time; and so the conditions for termination under
232.116(f) or (k) were not satisfied.”1 As noted, the evidence described above
supports termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (requiring proof of
several elements including proof that the child “at the present time . . . cannot be
returned to the custody of the child’s parents”).
III. The mother argues the department did not make reasonable efforts to
help her secure affordable housing. On our de novo review, we find that the
department engaged in some efforts to assist her with housing, but these efforts
were unavailing. For example, the case manager testified that a department
employee offered the mother a “once in a lifetime” $500 payment from an
emergency assistance program, but the record reflects this sum would have
been insufficient to cover periodic rent payments.
The case manager also
testified the mother did not follow through with the department’s efforts to secure
state public assistance for families, but the record reveals the mother was
ineligible for this assistance without the children in her care.
In short, we
question the efficacy of the department’s efforts to assist the mother with
obtaining housing.
With that said, the department furnished a number of other services,
including weekly supervised visits, parent skills training, and therapy.
1
The district court also terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to paragraph “e”
(requiring proof of several elements including proof that the parents have not maintained
significant and meaningful contact with the child). The mother does not challenge this
ground on appeal. While we could affirm the termination on an unchallenged ground,
see In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999), we decline to do so here.
5
Accordingly, we conclude the department satisfied its reasonable efforts
mandate.
IV. The mother finally argues that her due process rights were violated.
This issue was not preserved for our review. See In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38
(Iowa 2003) (“Even issues implicating constitutional rights must be presented to
and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal.”).
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her three
children, born in 2000, 2001, and 2003.
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.