IN THE INTEREST OF G.F., Minor Child, S.M.F., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-954 / 09-1399
Filed December 17, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF G.F.,
Minor Child,
S.M.F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
David Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Robert A. Hruska,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Angela Railsback, Cedar Rapids, for intervenors.
Deborah Skelton, Walford, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., Eisenhauer and Danilson, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. She
contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence. She also contends termination is not in the child’s best
interest. She seeks additional time for reunification. We review her claims de
novo. In re T.P., 757 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008).
The child, born in September 2006, came to the attention of the
Department of Human Services in November 2006 after the mother left her in the
care of a friend who was suicidal and using drugs, resulting in a founded child
abuse assessment for denial of critical care and failure to provide adequate care.
The mother signed a safety plan stating she would participate in services
provided by the DHS and not leave the child with unapproved caretakers, but
less than two months later, a second child abuse assessment was initiated when
the mother left the child in the care of her mother, who was suicidal. The child
was removed from the mother’s care three weeks later due to concerns about the
child’s safety.
In the three years since the initial child abuse assessment, the mother has
not made significant progress.
Although she demonstrated appropriate
caretaking for short periods while under supervision, concerns exist regarding the
child’s safety during longer periods when the mother has the child without
supervision. In May 2007, the child’s arm was fractured in two places during a
time period when she was in the mother’s care.
Although it could not be
confirmed the fracture occurred under the mother’s supervision, overnight
3
visitations were suspended for eighteen months.
The mother was granted
overnight visitation again in November 2008, and red welts were discovered on
the child’s buttocks the next day.
The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 232.116(d) and (h) (2009). We need only find termination proper under
one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(h) where the State proves
by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the
child's parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or
for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has
been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be
returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section
232.102 at the present time.
There is no dispute the first three elements have been met. The only question on
appeal is whether the child can be safely returned to the mother’s care. We find
she cannot.
Despite the services the mother received during the course of the
proceedings, she has been unable to demonstrate stability in regard to a
residence or job. She has demonstrated a pattern of leaving the child alone with
questionable caretakers, an inability to comfort the child, and questionable
judgment regarding the child’s safety. There are ongoing concerns about the
mother’s mental health issues and how they impact her ability to care for the
child. Additionally, she admitted to recently altering a prescription for Percocet in
4
an attempt to obtain more of the painkiller. We agree with the following finding
by the trial court judge: “Despite [the mother’s] progress in some areas, when her
visits are expanded and supervision is decreased, [the child] gets hurt.” Given
the concerns about the mother’s stability and judgment, we conclude the child
cannot be safely returned to her care.
For the foregoing reasons, we likewise conclude termination is in the
child’s best interest. Although the mother seeks an additional six months to
pursue reunification, we note she has had three years to demonstrate she can
appropriately care for her child.
While the law requires a “full measure of
patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills,”
this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232. In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). Children should not be forced to endlessly
await the maturity of a natural parent. Id. At some point, the rights and needs of
the child rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d
778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). The child needs and deserves permanency. In
re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating
children’s safety and their need for a permanent home are the defining elements
in a child’s best interests). Termination is in the child’s best interest.
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.
