From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re R.O

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Oct 26, 2005
707 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 5-685 / 05-1294

Filed October 26, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Mark J. Eveloff, District Associate Judge.

The State seeks reversal of the order dismissing its petition to terminate parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Kristina Kaeding of Kaeding Law Office, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, Dawn Eimers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant-State.

William McGinn of McGinn, McGinn, Jennings Springer, Council Bluffs, for appellee-mother.

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


The State seeks reversal of the juvenile court order dismissing the State's petition for termination of Carrie's parental rights to her son Robert. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm.

Background Facts and Proceedings.

Robert was born in Omaha, Nebraska in January of 2004. The infant was readmitted to the hospital a few days later for treatment of a life-threatening illness. The hospital staff observed Carrie, who was then taking prescription pain medications following a Caesarean delivery, sleeping through Robert's extended crying, failing to feed or diaper him, and apparently being inattentive to a doctor's attempt to explain the infant's illness. Robert was removed from Carrie's custody by a Nebraska court in February of 2004 and placed in foster care as a consequence of the hospital staff's concerns about Carrie's ability to care for the child upon his release from the hospital. After Nebraska's jurisdiction was deferred to Iowa, a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition was filed.

Following an uncontested hearing, Robert was adjudicated CINA under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2005) and placed in foster care under the custody of the Department of Human Services. The court found that Robert tested positive for the presence of marijuana at birth and noted that although she denied recent use, Carrie acknowledged she had used marijuana and methamphetamine "once or twice" before she knew she was pregnant. The court's disposition order entered on May 4, 2005 extended the foster care placement in part because Carrie and her paramour, Michael Phipps, then lived in a rather chaotic environment with five other adults, some of whom regularly used marijuana. After a November 4, 2004, permanency hearing, the juvenile court ordered that the State file a petition for the termination of Carrie's parental rights.

Phipps is not the father of Robert.

By the time of the termination hearing held in March and May of 2005, Carrie and Michael were living in the State of Nebraska with their infant daughter, Jessica. The State offered into evidence the results of a psychological evaluation that disclosed Carrie functions at the mental age of 11.5 years and exhibits impaired judgment. Service providers testified that although she consistently exercised supervised visitation opportunities, Carrie needed prompting to remove inedible objects from Robert's mouth and protect him from falling off the couch. The providers also noted that the bond between Carrie and Robert had been diminished as a consequence of Carrie's failure to stimulate the child.

The record suggests Carrie suffered two strokes which may have been a causal factor affecting her mental acuity.

Carrie called a Nebraska Department of Human Services caseworker to testify about his observations of Carrie's care of her second child, Jessica, who was born in December of 2004. The caseworker, who had conducted an assessment of Carrie and Michael's home after two visits totaling one and one — half hours, found no unsanitary conditions and learned nothing to indicate Jessica was at risk for abuse or neglect.

Phipps does claim to be the father of Jessica.

The juvenile court later entered a ruling denying the State's petition to terminate Carrie's parental rights. The court was particularly influenced by Carrie's apparently successful parenting of Jessica, and it concluded the State had failed to establish that Robert could not be returned to Carrie's custody without risk of harm. Both the State and Robert's guardian ad litem appeal from this ruling.

II. Scope of Review.

The standard of review in termination cases is de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. 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).

III. Merits.

On appeal, the State and Robert's guardian ad litem claim the juvenile court erred in dismissing the termination petition because Carrie is incapable of adequately parenting Robert in a safe manner. They understandably focus this court's attention on evidence of Carrie's history of illegal drug use, her limited mental capacity, and providers' descriptions of her shortcomings in parenting Robert. We in no way minimize these concerns which will affect the timing of Carrie's potential reunification with Robert. However, we affirm the juvenile court's conclusion that the State failed to meet its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination of Carrie's parental rights in this record.

The record reflects that Robert was exposed to marijuana in utero. Although she denied recent use of controlled substances, Carrie admitted she had used marijuana and methamphetamine one or twice before she knew she was pregnant.

Our decision is based not only on the Nebraska caseworker's testimony. Carrie also introduced into evidence two letters written by Dr. Larry Brown, Jessica's pediatrician. In his January 28, 2005 letter, the doctor noted:

[Jessica's] weight is on target, and exam is normal. I counseled her mother again, on normal newborn care and SIDS risk reduction. Parent/child interaction appears to be appropriate today. Parent presented appropriate questions, and her attitude and level of concern are appropriate. I understand that a Home Health nurse is following twice a week, which I feel to also be appropriate.

The second letter, written by the doctor on April 6, 2005, noted Jessica's on-target weight and normal exam, as well as Carrie's appropriate interactions with Jessica and her appropriate questioning, attitude, and level of concern.

While we look to the whole body of a parent's past performance in termination cases because that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care that the parent is capable of providing, see In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990), we also believe Carrie's most recent indications of parenting abilities are entitled to the greatest weight. We share the juvenile court's view that Carrie's recent parenting of Jessica requires judicial restraint in this case. We conclude termination of Carrie's parental rights is not in Robert's best interest at this time and more patience is justified in furtherance of reunification under the circumstances of this case.

Our supreme court has recognized a parental interest in the integrity of the family unit. See In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981). The United States Supreme Court has stated the "fundamental liberty of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1394-1395, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 606 (1982). We conclude termination is inappropriate at this time, and we therefore affirm the juvenile court's dismissal of the State's petition to terminate Carrie's parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

Sackett, C.J., concurs; Vaitheswaran, J., concurs specially.


I specially concur. I agree with the majority's decision to affirm the district court's dismissal of the termination petition. There appears to be no evidence Carrie used illegal drugs after 2003, and service providers reported that Carrie's basic parenting skills were improving. In addition, the district court's ruling provides that the Department of Human Services shall retain care, custody, and control of Robert. The ruling, therefore, affords Robert a measure of protection and gives the Department continuing authority to assist Carrie with her parenting skills. Finally, I note that the district court scheduled a review hearing for March 2006 to reassess Carrie's parenting abilities. These factors, in addition to the evidence that Carrie is appropriately parenting her second child, lead me to conclude that affirmance is in order.


Summaries of

In re R.O

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Oct 26, 2005
707 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

In re R.O

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF R.O., Minor Child, R.O., Minor Child, Appellant, STATE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Oct 26, 2005

Citations

707 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)