In the Interest of I.M., Minor Child, K.B., Mother ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1782
Filed December 21, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF I.M.,
Minor child,
K.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F.
Staudt, Judge.
Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights pursuant to
Iowa Code chapter 232 (2015). AFFIRMED.
Nina M. Forcier of Forcier Law Office, P.L.L.C., Waterloo, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Melissa A. Anderson-Seeber of Juvenile Public Defender’s Office,
Waterloo, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Kristi, the mother, appeals from an order terminating her parental rights in
her child I.M. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant
to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2015). The mother argues the State
failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the statutory grounds
authorizing the termination of her parental rights; the State failed to prove
termination of her parental rights is in the best interest of the child; and the
strength of the parent-child bond should preclude termination of her parental
rights under the circumstances. The standard of review and controlling
framework are well-established and need not be repeated herein. See, e.g., In re
M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219–20 (Iowa 2016) (stating review is de novo and
setting forth the applicable “three-step analysis”); In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100,
110–11 (Iowa 2014) (same); In re M.S., No. 16-0975, 2016 WL 6269904, at *2
(Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016) (discussing burden of production and persuasion).
The child at issue came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services after the child’s younger sister presented in the emergency room with
significant injuries, including a skull fracture, subdural hematoma, and dislocated
teeth. The child died from the injuries. Medical staff concluded the injuries were
consistent with trauma and not consistent with accidental injury, as the mother
claimed. I.M. was removed from the mother’s care, and the juvenile court
entered a no-contact order prohibiting the mother from having contact with the
child. The mother and her fiancé were suspects in the death of the child’s sibling
and were under criminal investigation during the pendency of this case. At the
time of the termination hearing, it appears the criminal investigation was
3
proceeding. The mother was offered numerous services, but she refused them
throughout most of this case. After her fiancé was incarcerated for an offense
unrelated to the death of the child, the mother began to avail herself of services.
She made little to no progress. The record reflects she was unable to provide
the basic necessities for the child, including safe care. There is little reason to
belabor the facts and circumstances of the case any further; we can add little to
the termination order issued by the district court.
On de novo review, we conclude the State established by clear and
convincing evidence termination of Kristi's rights was authorized pursuant to
section 232.116(1)(f). See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012) (“When
the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground,
we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find supported by the
record.”). We conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the
best interest of the child and no permissive exception should serve to preclude
the termination of her parental rights. The judgment of the district court is
affirmed without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.