IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1796
Filed December 19, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF L.W., M.W., and I.C.-R.,
Minor Children,
D.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker
Parry, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Martha M. McMinn, Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Marchelle M. Denker of State Public Defender Office, Sioux City, guardian
ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children.
She does not dispute that the requirements for termination have been satisfied.
Instead, she claims the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with
the children by denying her visitation with the two oldest children. We review her
claim de novo. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018).
Iowa law requires the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) to “make
every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as possible
consistent with the best interests of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.102(9). The
requirement “is not viewed as a strict substantive requirement of termination.
Instead, the scope of the efforts by the DHS to reunify parent and child after
removal impacts the burden of proving those elements of termination which require
reunification efforts.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). What
constitutes reasonable efforts depends on the circumstances of the case, but it
“includes visitation designed to facilitate reunification while providing adequate
protection for the child.” Id. “However, the nature and extent of visitation is always
controlled by the best interests of the child.” In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1996).
The mother has a long history of involvement with the DHS, extending back
to 2006. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to her first child
before the children at issue were born, and concerns about the mother’s ability to
provide a safe and appropriate home for the children have continued. Concerns
have been raised about the children’s physical injuries, poor nutrition, and
exposure to domestic violence. The juvenile court removed the children from the
3
mother’s care and adjudicated them to be children in need of assistance in 2017
after the child’s stepfather sexually abused the two oldest children. In spite of the
plethora of services offered to her in the year that followed, the mother failed to
resolve her parenting deficiencies. In addressing the mother’s argument that
reasonable efforts had not been made toward reunification because she had not
been allowed visits with the children, the juvenile court noted,
These children have been removed from parental custody
since April 19, 2017, despite efforts to keep the children in the home
through a safety plan. [The mother] argues that reasonable efforts
have not been made toward reunification because she has not been
allowed visits with the children. Visits should be child-focused, not
parent-focused. Children should not be “forced” to attend visits with
a parent who they view as someone who did not protect them from
the trauma they experienced. Visits are also a small portion of a
reunification plan. [The mother] continued to associate with
unhealthy men through websites, revealing her name and placement
of employment, thereby exposing herself to possible further abuse,
as well as possible abuse of her children should they be returned to
her care. These children have not been returned to parental custody
on even a trial home placement since their removal. There is clear
and convincing evidence that these children cannot be returned to
the custody of their parents as provided in Iowa Code section
232.102 at the present time or at any time in the near future. It is
clear to this court that [the mother] is not capable of implementing
what is being taught to her in therapy. She has no protective
capacity.
There is also clear and convincing evidence that the offer or
receipt of services would not correct the conditions which led to the
abuse or neglect of the children within a reasonable period of time.
[The mother] has been the recipient of a plethora of services
throughout her life. It is clear she learned nothing. It has been 15
months and [the mother] has continued to associate with unhealthy
men. Despite participating in therapy to address abuse and
boundaries, nothing has changed.
Visits with the mother were a trigger for the two older children, essentially “re-
traumatizing” them. After a December 2017 family team meeting, the decision was
made to stop visits with the mother until it was determined by the children’s
4
therapists that the children would be less traumatized by visits with their mother.
One of the children had a “rough night” after a March 2018 visit. Providing the
mother with visitation would not have remedied these concerns. Instead, the
record clearly indicates that visitation would have been contrary to the children’s
best interests. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of L.W., M.W., and I.C.-R., Minor Children
Combined Opinion