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 “retraumatizing” 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.