IN THE INTEREST OF J.J., Minor Child, N.S.M., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-887 / 09-1350
Filed November 25, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.,
Minor Child,
N.S.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Kim M. Riley,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Bethany J. Currie of Johnson, Sudenga, Latham, Peglow & O’Hare,
P.L.C., Marshalltown, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and Randal J. Tilton, County Attorney, for appellee State.
Richard N. Dunn of Dunn & Dunn, P.C., Eldora, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
A mother appeals the district court order terminating her parental rights to
one-and-a-half-year-old J.J. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The Iowa Department of Human Services became involved with this family
shortly after J.J.’s birth in April 2008. The mother has a full-scale IQ of 61,
placing her in the mild mentally retarded range. Since J.J.’s birth, the mother has
received
numerous
services,
including
financial
assistance,
budgeting,
transportation (the mother did not have a valid driver’s license), and help with
housekeeping and tidiness. The mother has also received help to receive Social
Security benefits for her mental impairment.
DHS arranged for thirty days of intensive in-home safety services by a
Youth and Family Center worker. After the thirty days, the worker continued to
meet with the mother on a weekly basis to assist with parenting skills
development, supervision, and other daily living skills.
The mother also met
weekly with Greenbelt Home Care to evaluate J.J.’s physical health, and AEA
267 to evaluate J.J.’s developmental needs.
In July 2008, the mother married a man that she claimed was J.J.’s father.
She later denied these allegations, and J.J.’s biological father has not been
identified.
The couple lived together with J.J. in Ackley in the mother’s
apartment. The marriage became unstable by September 2008, and the mother
reported the husband was physically abusive toward her. The couple separated
in January 2009. The mother filed for divorce and moved into an apartment in
Iowa Falls.
3
The mother cooperated with the services offered to her, but failed to
exhibit any significant amount of improvement in her parenting skills. The mother
was unable to safely parent J.J. on her own without the assistance of a
professional agency, and lacked the appropriate knowledge of beliefs and
attitudes toward child care.
J.J. was removed from the mother’s care on December 2, 2008, and was
placed in family foster care where she has remained since that time.
The
removal was necessitated by the mother’s travel to California, when she left J.J.
with a person that DHS had not approved of, and without financial and medical
care.1 The mother indicated to service providers that she intended to be gone in
California for at least thirty days and made threats to abscond with J.J. Since
J.J.’s removal, the mother has had regular visitation, initially supervised visits
once a week, and progressed to partially unsupervised visits twice weekly.
The mother’s requests for fully unsupervised visits were denied, as she
failed to make adequate improvements in her parenting. At one point, the visits
were increased in frequency and duration; however, service providers reported
the increased visits were stressful for J.J., and the visits were decreased. J.J.
became agitated and anxious during visits. The mother often got angry and
yelled or swore at J.J. The mother did not recognize that J.J. was not old enough
to comprehend what she was saying, and that J.J. did not understand why she
was being disciplined.
1
The mother had voluntarily placed J.J. in foster care for several weeks around
August 2008, when J.J. had suffered severe burns to her feet during a bath and the
mother recognized she could not appropriately tend to the burns. The mother missed
two scheduled visits with J.J. during this removal, and chose to spend time in Waterloo
with her half-sister instead.
4
The mother’s home was not a safe environment for J.J. On numerous
visits to the mother’s apartment, J.J. would find cigarette butts and other debris
on the floor and put them in her mouth. Even with the help of service providers
to clean her apartment, the apartment was usually cluttered and messy at the
time of J.J.’s visits. The mother consistently failed to have appropriate food for
J.J., and failed to cut food into small pieces that J.J. would not choke on. These
problems continued even after service providers repeatedly reminded the mother
that she needed to be careful with J.J. and keep her apartment clean and safe for
J.J. The mother failed to understand that J.J. could not distinguish household
dangers.
Service providers demonstrated how to perform specific parenting
duties, and although the mother listened and complied, she failed to make
sufficient improvements. The mother did not intentionally disregard the service
providers’ parenting advice and suggestions, but rather, her limited mental
capacity impaired her abilities.
Service providers informed the mother that she would likely need
someone else providing twenty-four-hour supervision over J.J. in order to safely
return J.J. to her care. The mother attempted to find a roommate, but several
plans fell through.
The mother did not have good relationships with family
members, and her relationships with friends were unstable and routinely
deteriorated after a matter of months. Shortly before the termination hearing, the
mother moved in and signed a month-to-month lease with a friend in Hampton.
The mother indicated this friend was a mother of three children who could assist
the mother with parenting J.J.
5
In July 2009, the State filed a termination petition.
After a contested
hearing, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights on September 1, 2009,
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2009). The mother now appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d
147, 149 (Iowa 2005). Although we give weight to the juvenile court’s findings of
fact, we are not bound by them. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001).
The grounds for termination must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). 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 child. In re
A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
III. Issues on Appeal.
A. Clear and Convincing Evidence.
The mother argues the court erred in finding J.J. cannot be immediately
returned to her care.
She contends the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that J.J. would suffer further adjudicatory harm if returned to
her care.
The mother has been involved with DHS since early 2008, and has
received numerous and extensive services since that time.
The mother has
essentially received help with every aspect of day-to-day life, from transportation
to financial assistance, to parenting skills and development. Throughout this
6
time, however, the mother has failed to show significant improvement in her
abilities to safely and adequately parent J.J. without agency assistance.
The same problems continued to arise throughout these proceedings.
Although these problems are somewhat basic, they demonstrate the extent the
mother’s limited intellectual capacity impairs her ability to care for J.J.
The
mother was unable to keep her apartment clean and allowed J.J. to crawl and
walk on the floor amidst cigarette butts and other debris. The mother had trouble
keeping J.J.’s clothes clean and failed to feed J.J. appropriate foods or cut the
food into small pieces. The mother was impulsive and yelled and swore at J.J.
She failed to understand that J.J. did not know what she was saying, and the fact
that J.J. could not protect herself from household dangers.
Aside from the mother’s inability to provide general childcare to J.J., the
mother could not obtain a job and did not have stable housing. In less than two
years, the mother had lived with several different people, each for short periods
of time, and in at least three different towns. She also indicated she wanted to
move to California, and threatened to leave the state with J.J. When DHS did not
give her permission to leave with J.J., the mother left J.J. with a friend (unknown
to DHS) and went to California anyway. Prior to J.J.’s removal, the mother got
married, but then filed for divorce less than a year later because her husband
physically abused her. Although DHS indicated the mother may be able to care
for J.J. if someone else provided twenty-four-hour supervision over J.J., the
mother has demonstrated that she continues to put herself and J.J. in harmful
situations, and that she is unable to maintain a stable relationship with anyone for
more than a period of months.
7
The mother has not progressed to completely unsupervised or overnight
visits, and attempts to increase visitation were halted because longer and more
frequent visits adversely affected J.J.
about
the
mother’s
relationship
There continue to be major concerns
choices,
accountability,
limited
mental
functioning, lack of employment and consistent housing, and lack of responsibility
for the harms she causes J.J. For nearly the past year, J.J. has lived in family
foster care.
The mother has not demonstrated significant improvement over more than
a year of extensive services. Past performance of a parent may be indicative of
the quality of future care the parent is capable of providing. In re C.W., 554
N.W.2d 279, 283 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). The legislature incorporated a six-month
limitation for children in need of assistance aged three and below. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(h)(3). Our supreme court has stated that “the legislature, in cases
meeting the conditions of [the Iowa Code], has made a categorical determination
that the needs of a child are promoted by termination of parental rights.” In re
M.W.,
458
N.W.2d
847,
850
(Iowa
1990)
(discussing
Iowa
Code
§ 232.116(1)(e)). The public policy of the State having been legislatively set, we
are obligated to heed the statutory time periods for reunification.
Here, the
evidence establishes that the child will not be able to return to the mother’s
custody within a reasonable period. Additionally, the evidence at trial established
that the child is in need of permanency, and the child should not have to wait any
longer. In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987) (“[P]atience with parents
can soon translate into intolerable hardship for their children.”). “At some point,
the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parents.”
8
In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). The record clearly
supports the mother’s inability to provide a safe environment for J.J., now or in
the future. We find clear and convincing evidence supports termination of the
mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).
B. Best Interests.
The mother also argues termination was not the child’s best interests. As
stated above, our primary concern in termination cases is the best interests of
the children. A.S., 743 N.W.2d at 867. “A child’s safety and the need for a
permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best
interests.” In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring
specially). Those best interests are to be determined by looking at the child’s
long-range as well as immediate interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172
(Iowa 1997). We are to consider what the future likely holds for the child if the
child is returned to the parents. In re J.K., 495 N.W.2d 108, 110 (Iowa 1993).
Insight for that determination is to be gained from evidence of the parents’ past
performance, for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future
care that the parent is capable of providing. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493-94
(Iowa 1990); In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981).
The mother clearly loves J.J. and is bonded to her, and there is no
evidence the mother physically abused J.J. or intentionally mistreated her.
Indeed, the mother participated in all services offered to her and exhibited
commitment to learning the skills needed to return J.J. to her care. The State
offered the mother parenting and day-to-day living assistance both before and
9
after J.J. was removed from her care. Unfortunately, the mother was not able to
assimilate the training and function at the level required for J.J.’s return home.
As mentioned above, a number of the problems were related to the
mother’s limited intellectual abilities.
We agree with the juvenile court’s
determination that the mother’s limited abilities were a substantial factor in the
decision to terminate her parental rights. A parent’s mental disability is a proper
factor to consider in determining whether a child is neglected and his or her
welfare requires termination. In re F.M., 506 N.W.2d 463, 465 (Iowa Ct. App.
1993).
“A parent’s mental disability, while not alone sufficient to terminate
parental rights, can be a contributing factor to the parent’s inability to perform
essential parenting functions, and termination can be appropriate where a parent
lacks the capacity to meet a child’s present and future needs.” In re T.T., 541
N.W.2d 552, 556 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citing In re A.M.S., 419 N.W.2d 723, 733
(Iowa 1988)). Such is the case here.
We are convinced that J.J.’s interests are best served by terminating the
mother’s parental rights and continuing J.J.’s placement in a safe and stable
home. Returning J.J. to the mother’s home without a number of services and
full-time supervision is not an option. There is no reason to further delay J.J. the
permanency she needs and deserves.
parental rights is in J.J.’s best interests.
AFFIRMED.
We find termination of the mother’s
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.
