IN RE INTEREST OF S.H., 699 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa App. 2005)

No. 5-370 / 05-0435Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 11, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Liebbe, Judge.

A mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her three children. AFFIRMED.

Cheryl Fullenkamp, Davenport, for appellant-mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Christine Frederick, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.

John Molyneaux, Davenport, for father of S.H.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

SACKETT, C.J.

A mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her three children. She contends termination is not in the children’s best interest. On de novo review, we affirm.

Theresa is the mother of Dalvin, born in 1994, Shantilly, born in 1998, and Shaniya, born in 2001, all to different fathers. The children were removed after Theresa physically abused Shantilly. Later, the State petitioned to terminate all the parents’ rights. Following a hearing in February 2005, the juvenile court terminated Theresa’s rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f) (2005).

On appeal, Theresa does not challenge any of the statutory grounds for termination or the services provided in an effort to reunify the family. Her sole contention is that termination is not in the best interest of the children. See In re N.J., 383 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 1986) (stating termination must be in the children’s best interest). She argues termination would deprive the children of “any future interaction” with her and “an ongoing relationship” with her. She contends there is a bond between the children and her and she loves them and they love her.

The juvenile court has discretion not to order termination when the statutory grounds have been proven if “there is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). When asked about her relationship with her children, Theresa testified, “They run up to me and give me hugs and say `hi mommy,’ and they want some juice, cookies, or when they get hungry I just give them chips or snacks or whatever.” She testified there is an attachment between her and her children. When asked what she wanted to see happen to her children, she responded, “To be treated good and keep their hair combed and clothes and shoes and stuff.”

Theresa was inconsistent in complying with requirements of the case permanency plan. Although she asserts there is a bond between her and the children, we find there is not clear and convincing evidence termination would be detrimental to the children because of the closeness of the parent-child bond. We conclude termination is in the interest of the children.

AFFIRMED.