Categories: Iowa Court Opinions

IN RE R.P., 705 N.W.2d 506 (Iowa App. 2005)

IN THE INTEREST OF R.P., III, K.C., and B.H., Minor Children, T.P., Mother, Appellant.

No. 5-597 / 05-1048Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed August 31, 2005

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District Associate Judge.

T.P. appeals from the termination of her parental rights.AFFIRMED.

David Erickson of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors Roberts, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Will Sales and Annette Stanley, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee-State.

Jeff Crispin, Des Moines, for father of R.P. III.

Heather Wood of Rosenberg, Stowers Morse, Des Moines, for father of B.H. and K.C.

Christine Milligan-Ciha, Public Defenders Office, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.

MAHAN, J.

I. Background Facts Proceedings
Tharassa is the mother of Roger, born in June 2001; Bryson, born in August 2002; and Keyuon, born in February 2004. Tharassa has a history of substance abuse and involvement in abusive relationships. In March 2004 the children were removed from Tharassa’s care and placed with the maternal grandmother after Tharassa and the children all tested positive for the presence of cocaine.

The children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) (2003) (parent is imminently likely to neglect child), (c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent’s failure to supervise), and (n) (parent’s drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). Tharassa completed a substance abuse treatment program. She participated in counseling, and obtained a job and an apartment.

While Tharassa participated in services, she remained unable to supervise the children. During visitation Tharassa’s attention would go to Roger, and she would not pay attention to the two younger children, to whom she did not appear to be bonded. Additionally, Tharassa became involved with a new man, Joseph, who had a history of domestic violence.

In March 2005 the State filed a petition seeking termination of the Tharassa’s parental rights. The juvenile court terminated Tharassa’s parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(d) (2005) (child CINA for neglect, circumstances continue despite the receipt of services) and (h) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed for at least six months, and cannot be returned home). The juvenile court found “[t]he difficulty is that even with sobriety and new training, [Tharassa] has proved she cannot do what is necessary to protect and care for her children.” The court concluded that “with all her successes and use of services [she] is still unable to exercise the degree of parental judgment which is necessary to provide a safe and stable home for her very young children.” Tharassa appeals the termination of her parental rights.[1]

II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).

III. Merits
Tharassa contends that she complied with services and the children should be returned to her care. She points out that she is substance free and obtained housing and employment. Tharassa believes her parental rights should not have been terminated.

We find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of Tharassa’s parental rights. Tharassa continued to be involved in abusive relationships, and she did not understand how these abusive relationships were harmful to the children. Furthermore, despite the receipt of services, Tharassa remained unable to supervise the children. Considering all the factors in this case, we conclude termination of Tharassa’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children.

We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.

[1] The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s fathers. These fathers are not part of this appeal.

Page 60

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

STATE v. WARNER, 100 Iowa 260 (1896)

Dec 11, 1896 · Iowa Supreme Court 100 Iowa 260 State of Iowa v. W. J. Warner,…

6 days ago

WINGER CONTRACTING COMPANY v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, 926 N.W.2d 526 (2019)

926 N.W.2d 526 (2019) WINGER CONTRACTING COMPANY, Appellant, v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, Appellee. Tracer Construction, LLC,…

5 years ago

DuTRAC COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION v. HEFEL, No. 15-1379 (Iowa 2/3/2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 15–1379 Filed February 3, 2017 DuTRAC COMMUNITY CREDIT…

9 years ago

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. VANDEL, No. 16-1704 (Iowa 1/27/2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16–1704 Filed January 27, 2017 IOWA SUPREME COURT…

9 years ago

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. WILLEY, No. 16-1228 (Iowa 1/27/2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16–1228 Filed January 27, 2017 IOWA SUPREME COURT…

9 years ago

BOARD OF WATER WORKS TRUSTEES v. SAC COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, No. 16-0076 (Iowa 1/27/2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16–0076 Filed January 27, 2017 BOARD OF WATER…

9 years ago