In the Interest of T.L. and S.L., Minor Children, J.G., Mother ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0258
Filed April 5, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF T.L. and S.L.,
Minor Children,
J.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman
Salic, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
AFFIRMED.
Philip L. Garland of Garland Law Firm, Garner, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Charles K. Phillips, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Theodore J. Hovda, Garner, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, asserting it was
not in the children’s best interests and there were factors militating against
termination. We affirm.
T.L., born 2009, and S.L., born 2003, came to the attention of the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) in January 2015, after the mother’s
paramour allegedly sexually abused T.L. In addition, S.L. had witnessed
incidences of domestic violence between the mother and her paramour. The
children were removed from the mother’s care and placed with their father, where
they have remained throughout the pendency of these proceedings.
On appeal, the mother does not contest the statutory grounds upon which
her rights were terminated. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d), (f) (2015). Instead,
she claims termination was not in the children’s best interests because of the
close relationship she shares with the children and because they are placed with
their father. See id. § 232.116(2), (3). The district court rejected both
arguments, and on our de novo review, so do we. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d
100, 110 (Iowa 2014) (“We review proceedings terminating parental rights de
novo.”).
For two years the mother was offered a host of services, which she failed
to engage in, leaving her in no better position to safely care for the children than
when they were initially removed. Her relationship with her abusive paramour
continued, as the mother denied he had abused T.L., and the mother remained
financially and emotionally dependent on the paramour. Although initially testing
negative for illegal substances, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine
3
and amphetamines shortly before the termination hearing. The children were
often disappointed by the mother cancelling or shortening visits or when the
mother’s behavior at the visits became confrontational. The workers who
supervised visits all opined the visits were detrimental to the children. The record
is clear the mother has chosen her paramour over her children. The district court
found termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the
children and no bond between the mother and the children outweighed
termination. We agree and affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R.
21.26(1)(a), (d), (e).
AFFIRMED.