IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-2106
Filed February 25, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF J.R. and A.R.,
Minor Children,
N.F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L.
Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Michelle Marie Jungers of Iowa Legal Aid, Waterloo, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven H.
Halbach, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Melissa Anderson Seeber of Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for
minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, J.
The mother appeals from termination of her parental rights to two
children.1 The mother previously lost rights to three younger children in the
family. This court affirmed termination of three younger children in In re L.A., No.
14-1145, 2014 WL 6682341, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014). In the present
case concerning two older children, the mother does not challenge the statutory
grounds for termination. She contends termination was not in the children’s best
interests and she should be given an additional six months to work toward
reunification.
We review a juvenile court order terminating parental rights de novo. In re
A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). We give weight to the factual
determinations of the juvenile court, especially with regard to witness credibility,
but are not bound by them. Id. Our primary consideration is the best interest of
the child. Id.
The mother first contends termination was not in the children’s best
interest because they are bonded with her and because “terminating her parental
rights would mean that the[] children would not have a connection to their cultural
heritage.” The mother identifies with a different cultural heritage than the foster
parents. The mother states she preserved error on this issue by arguing this
position in her closing argument at the termination hearing. It is well-established
that an issue must be raised and ruled upon at the trial level before we may
address it on appeal. Id. at 774. The district court order does not at any point
1
The father is deceased.
3
mention this issue. Nor did the court exercise its discretion to apply the statutory
exception under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) (2013) to prevent the
termination of the mother’s rights due to a “bond” with the children. The mother
did not raise the court’s failure to address these issues through a motion
pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904. Therefore, they are not
preserved for this appeal. See id. (“the general rule that appellate arguments
must first be raised in the trial court applies to CINA and termination of parental
rights cases”); In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Iowa 1994) (holding a party
must draw overlooked issues to the court’s attention through a rule 179(b)—now
rule 1.904(2)—motion to preserve the issue for appeal).
The mother next contends she should have been given an additional six
months to work toward reunification. The record in this case discloses the
children were removed from the mother due to domestic violence between the
mother and her paramour and their substance abuse. The mother has made
next to no progress on her reunification goals including attending parenting and
domestic violence classes and counseling. She flat-out denies the domestic
abuse the paramour committed against her and the effect it had on the children.
The older child believes the mother does not love her after the child testified at
the paramour’s domestic abuse trial. The mother repeatedly violated the no-
contact order with her paramour and continues to have contact with him. She
has been largely uncooperative with the Iowa Department of Human Services
and service providers.
4
In order to extend a child’s placement for an additional six months, the
juvenile court must find that the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of
the six months. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b); see also In re H.R.K., 433
N.W.2d 46, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (holding the parents’ failure to recognize the
abuse the children suffered was a permissible factor to consider in the
termination decision); In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (finding
that without acknowledgment and recognition of abuse, services to assist the
parent and child are not likely to be effective). There is nothing in this record that
suggests to us that the need for removal would no longer exist in six months if
the placement were extended. The five children in this family2 have been under
court supervision since January 2012. In its termination order, the juvenile court
found,
No evidence has been presented to the court which would cause
the court to believe that [the mother] desires to make any changes
in her lifestyle, is even willing to consider how her actions have
affected the lives of her children or that she is able to protect her
children if they would be returned to her care.
On our de novo review, we agree with this conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm the
order of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.
2
Two children are involved in this appeal. The mother’s rights were previously
terminated as to the other three children.