Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-414 / 12-0533 Filed June 13, 2012

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M., Minor Child, D.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.

A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Brandy Lundy of Lundy Law Office, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Jerry Vander Sanden, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State. Julie Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, for minor child.

Considered by Eisenhauer, C.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.

2 EISENHAUER, C.J. A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her child. She contends the statutory grounds were not proved by clear and

convincing evidence and termination is not in the child's best interes ts. We review her claims de novo, see In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010), and affirm. The mother's parental rights to another infant, born prematurely in May 2010, were terminated about the time of this child's birth. The mother's cognitive and emotional limitations interfered with her ability to provide basic care for the child. This child, born prematurely in April 2011, required an extended stay in the hospital. Based in part on the same concerns that led to termination of the mother's parental rights to the older child, the child in this case was placed in the custody of the department of human services in early May and placed in foster family care upon release from the hospital in mid-June. The mother has been unable to identify the father of the child. Paternity testing excluded the first man she named and two others were excluded after investigation. A fourth man the mother named could not be located. The mother participated in services but was not consistent in attending supervised visitation and resisted some parenting skill instruction. She made some progress in learning to change a diaper, bathe and dress a child, and prepare a bottle after receiving repeated instruction through the course of both child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings, but neither the service providers nor the evaluator who performed Allen cognitive testing on the mother believed she could safely care for a child without supervision.

3 In October the mother said she did not want any more visits with the child and wanted to consent to termination of her parental rights. By mid-December she had not signed any written consent to termination, but had not visited the child since mid-October. The State then filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights. The mother's visitation after the petition was filed was sporadic. Following a contested hearing in March 2012, the court terminated the mother's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (g), and (h) (2011). On appeal, the mother contends the court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned to her care at the present time. Section 232.116(1)(e), concerning a parent maintaining " significant and meaningful contact" with a child, does not require proof a child cannot be returned to a parent's care at the present time. "[S]ignificant and meaningful contact" includes but is not limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain communication with the child, and requires that the parents establish and maintain a place of importance in the child's life. Iowa Code

Download IN THE INTEREST OF B.M., Minor Child, D.M., Mother, Appellant..pdf

Iowa Law