IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1914
Filed March 23, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF E.H. AND P.H.,
Minor Children,
C.E., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, William S.
Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to
her children. AFFIRMED.
Mary Baird Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd and Janet
L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Sarah L. Wenke of Wenke Law Office, Ottumwa, for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to
her children, E.H. and P.H.1 She argues termination was inappropriate both
because it was not in the best interests of her children and because her children
were placed with relatives. We find termination was in the children’s best
interests and was appropriate in spite of the fact the children were placed in the
legal custody of relatives. We therefore affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
E.H. is a four-year-old girl. P.H. is a one-year-old boy. By the time P.H.
was born in 2014, E.H. had already been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance on two separate occasions. The first such adjudication occurred in
November 2012 and stemmed from allegations the father and mother had gotten
into an argument, with E.H. present, which involved the father hitting the mother
and then breaking out a window with the butt of a .22 caliber rifle. The second
adjudication occurred in February 2014 and stemmed from allegations the
mother would leave E.H.—then a one-year-old child—alone inside the family’s
apartment for extended periods of time, without any means of monitoring her,
while the mother visited with friends outside the building. The family’s apartment
was also alleged to be a health hazard due to trash and old food strewn about
the floor.
When E.H. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance for the second
time in February 2014, the juvenile court placed her in the legal custody of the
1
The children’s father consented to the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights,
and he is not part of this appeal.
3
paternal grandparents. When P.H. was born later the same year, the mother
was not allowed to take him home from the hospital. Instead, P.H. was placed in
the legal custody of the maternal grandparents. Soon afterward, in October
2014, he too was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance. Neither child
was ever returned to the mother’s care after being removed.
The mother’s parenting deficiencies were addressed in a 2014
psychological evaluation completed as a result of a DHS referral. The evaluating
psychologist’s report explained that an intellectual assessment placed the mother
in the “mildly intellectually disabled/borderline range” of intellectual functioning,
and comprehension assessments placed her at an eighth-grade level. The
report found “a number of serious concerns in regard to [the mother’s] ability to
parent” and concluded that the problems were “likely due to a combination of not
prioritizing her children’s needs and her lower intellectual ability.” The mother
has received SSI benefits for a learning disability since she was eighteen years
old and utilizes the services of a payee because she has difficulty managing
money herself.
Despite the mother’s participation in a number of services provided to her
by DHS, she was not able to remedy her deficiencies. She continued to lack the
ability to simultaneously maintain a clean and safe home, properly supervise her
children, and also care for herself. As a result, the State moved to terminate her
parental rights, and a contested termination hearing was held on September 9,
2015. The mother did not testify. On October 30, 2015, the juvenile court
terminated the mother’s parental rights to both E.H. and P.H. pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2015).
4
The mother now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We conduct a de novo review of proceedings terminating parental rights.
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). An order terminating parental
rights will be upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706
(Iowa 2010). Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness of conclusions drawn from it. Id. We
give weight to the factual determinations of the juvenile court, particularly
regarding the credibility of witnesses, although we are not bound by them. Id.
The primary consideration of our review is the best interests of the child. In re
J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Discussion
Termination of parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 232 follows a
three-step analysis. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). First, the
court must determine if a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has
been established. Id. Second, if a ground for termination is established, the
court must apply the framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if
proceeding with termination is in the best interests of the child. Id. Third, if the
statutory best-interests framework supports termination of parental rights, the
court must consider if any statutory factors set forth in section 232.116(3) should
serve to preclude termination. Id.
The mother does not argue the State failed to prove grounds for
termination of her parental rights, so we need not address the first step of
5
analysis. She instead challenges the juvenile court’s ruling as it relates to the
second and third steps. As to the second, she argues termination was not in the
best interests of her children. As to the third, she argues that because each of
her two children had been placed with grandparents, a statutory factor existed
and termination was unnecessary. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a) (“The court
need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child if the court finds
. . . [a] relative has legal custody of the child.”).
On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion that
termination was in the best interests of E.H. and P.H. The mother has never
demonstrated the ability to provide safe and reliable care for her children. As a
result, the children’s safety, long-term nurturing and growth, and physical,
mental, and emotional needs will be best served by termination of the mother’s
parental rights, so that E.H. and P.H. can achieve permanency through adoption.
We do recognize the preference for keeping siblings together whenever possible.
See In re L.B.T., 318 N.W.2d 200, 202 (Iowa 1982). But E.H. and P.H. have
never lived together. Moreover, the paternal and maternal grandparents in this
case live within twelve miles of each other, and the children have seen each
other regularly. Thus, we remain confident termination satisfies the best interests
requirement even taking into account the fact the children are placed with
separate relatives.
We also agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination of the
mother’s parental rights was appropriate in this case in spite of the statutory
factor weighing against termination. The language of 232.116(3) is permissive,
so a juvenile court may choose to forego termination if any of the listed
6
circumstances are satisfied but is not obligated to do so. See In re D.S., 806
N.W.2d 458, 474–75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). Here, although it is true both E.H.
and P.H. were placed in the legal custody of their grandparents, we find
termination was still in the children’s best interests and was therefore
appropriate.
AFFIRMED.