Opinion
No. 2-554 / 01-1874.
Filed July 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, JOHN G. MULLEN, District Associate Judge.
The mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Robert Phelps of Phelps Phelps, Davenport, for appellant.
Murray Bell, Davenport, for intervenor.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Patricia Zamora of Zamora, Taylor, Clark, Alexander, Woods Frederick, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and ZIMMER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
The mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (h) (Supp. 2001). She contends (1) she was not afforded reasonable accommodation for her disability as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (2) the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunify her and her son; and (3) the juvenile court erred in determining there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights. We affirm.
In its order terminating parental rights, the court cites to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c), (d) and (g). However, the applicable law in this termination is correctly cited as Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (h) (Supp. 2001) due to an amendment to section 232.116 that renumbered the sections but did not substantively alter them.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re C.B . , 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. Id .
We find the mother did not preserve error with regard to her claims that she was not afforded reasonable accommodation for her disability in accordance with the ADA and that DHS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts. Not only the sufficiency of services, but also the issue of reasonable accommodation, should be raised at the removal or review hearing or when services are offered. In re C.M., 526 N.W.2d 562, 566 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994); In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). In addition, it is too late to challenge the service plan at the termination hearing. L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d at 807. In any event, these issues must be raised before appeal. C.M., 526 N.W.2d at 566. No evidence appears in the record that the mother challenged the services provided or the accommodation issue at the appropriate times. We accordingly decline to address these issues on appeal.
Upon a careful review of the record, we also find there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate the mother's parental rights. Indeed, the evidence was overwhelming. The DHS provided reasonable reunification services, but the mother failed to take advantage of these services. She did not demonstrate the ability to care for her son. The progress she made was unfortunately overshadowed by the many obstacles that continued to hinder her ability to provide a safe and secure environment for him. She is easily agitated or distracted, and loses track of him. She cannot get him to comply with simple instructions or commands. Therefore, she is able to exercise only a small amount of control over him. In addition, she has not progressed beyond unsupervised visitation since the service providers felt that she could not be trusted alone with her son. She continues to make inappropriate comments and exhibits inappropriate behavior around him. In fact, just prior to the termination proceeding, the mother's behavior became so erratic that the service providers asked for a no-contact order. The amount of patience for the mother's actions must be reasonably limited because "patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for their children." In re A.Y.H, 508 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). The record is clear that the mother loves her son but she has not proven she is able to effectively parent or keep her son safe while he is in her care. Therefore, the best interests of the child warrant the termination of the mother's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.