From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Interest of A.S

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 12, 2003
662 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

No. 3-073 / 02-1982

Filed February 12, 2003

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.

Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.

Cynthia Hicks of Box and Box Attorneys, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Victoria Siegel, County Attorney, for appellee State.

Mary Krafka of Swanstrom Krafka, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for child.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.


Karen J. is the mother of Autumn S., born November 14, 2001. Autumn first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) when staff at a substance abuse treatment facility reported that Karen had struck Autumn on the head and asked staff to take her because she could not cope with Autumn. On February 1, 2002, Autumn was removed by ex parte order, and on March 5, 2002, the juvenile court adjudicated Autumn to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n) (2001). Karen subsequently became incarcerated at the Women's Correctional Institute in Mitchellville after a probation revocation on drug-related charges. Following a later hearing on the State's petition, the court terminated Karen's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (Supp. 2001). Karen appeals this order.

We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).

On appeal, Karen asserts that termination is not in Autumn's best interests and that clear and convincing evidence does not support the termination order. On our de novo review, we conclude clear and convincing evidence supports the termination under section 232.116(1)(d). As noted, Autumn was adjudicated CINA in March of 2002, after DHS learned Karen, who was then in substance abuse treatment, had struck Autumn on the head when she would not stop crying and based on concerns that Karen had threatened to further injure Autumn. Karen was offered a wide variety of services including family preservation services, Amethyst House services, psycho-social assessments, Southern Iowa Mental Health Center services, NA/AA meetings, foster care, supervised visits, parenting classes, and anger management classes. Some of these were prison-based services. Despite the receipt of these services, significant concerns remain regarding Karen's ability to safely parent Autumn. Among those obstacles to reunification are her lack of success in resolving anger management problems, failure to remain abstinent from drugs and alcohol, continuing criminal activity, inability to secure a safe home, failure to provide Autumn with a stable environment, and her imprisonment. Based on these and other concerns founded in the record we also conclude termination is in Autumn's best interests, and therefore affirm the termination.

In order to support a termination under this provision, the State must establish the child was adjudicated CINA for physical or sexual abuse or neglect and circumstances continue despite the receipt of services.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In the Interest of A.S

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 12, 2003
662 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

In the Interest of A.S

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF A.S., Minor Child, K.J., Mother, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Feb 12, 2003

Citations

662 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)