Opinion
No. 2-711 / 02-1015
Filed August 28, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael W. Liebbe, Associate Juvenile Court Judge.
Mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter.
AFFIRMED.
Benjamin A. Yeggy of Gomez, May, Cartee Schutte, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Michael Hines, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Karen F. appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, Courtney F., who was born August 16, 1999. She contends service providers did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with Courtney. She also asserts termination was improper because Karen's aunt and uncle were willing to care for Courtney. We affirm.
On June 28, 2001, Courtney was adjudicated in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and 232.2(6)(n) (2001). The adjudication was based on Karen's incarceration pending a disposition of her charges of theft and forgery. On February 22, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Karen's parental rights to Courtney. Following a hearing, the court terminated her rights under sections 232.116(1)(a), (g), and (k).
We review these termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Karen first attacks the sufficiency of reunification services. Although we question whether Karen has preserved this contention for our review, see In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994) ("Parents have a responsibility to demand services prior to the termination hearing."), we nonetheless conclude reasonable services were offered and provided to Karen to attempt to unify the family and preserve the family unit.
Karen was offered substance abuse treatment at a program called New Horizons, outpatient treatment at CADS in Davenport, supervised visitation, foster care service through Lutheran Social Services, mental health treatment by Psychology Associates, and monitoring from her federal probation officer.
Despite the variety of services offered to her, the record shows Karen only minimally cooperated with them and internalized little of what she was taught. Further, we find the services provided were reasonable under the circumstances, especially considering Karen was incarcerated when the children were initially removed from her care and she was later placed in a federal penitentiary. We therefore reject Karen's attack on the sufficiency of reunification services.
Second, Karen suggests termination was improper in that her aunt and uncle were willing to take Courtney either on a temporary or long-term basis. We conclude Karen has not preserved this contention for review. The juvenile court did not address this request. An issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).
AFFIRMED.