Opinion
No. 3-458 / 03-0772.
Filed June 25, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Michael J. Burdette, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Matthew Hrubetz, Des Moines, for father.
Tamara Knight, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Jane B. appeals from the termination of her parental rights. Jane B. and Rich B. are the divorced parents of Richelle and Joy B., born March 12, 1996 and June 7, 1997, respectively.
Jane has struggled with mental health issues. On September 21, 2001, police officers stopped Jane after they observed her driving recklessly with her two children in the car. At the time she was stopped, Jane's license was under suspension for medical reasons. The juvenile court ordered the children removed from Jane's care to ensure their safety and placed them in foster care.
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance on November 20, 2001. Following a dispositional hearing in December 2001, removal was continued due to Jane's "mental health issues." The mother was ordered to complete a neuropsychological evaluation and was offered numerous services. The children were placed in their father's home in April 2002. There have been no trial periods in the home of the mother.
On October 14, 2002, the State filed a petition to terminate Jane's parental rights. The matter came before the juvenile court for trial on February 11, 12, and 13, 2003. On April 11, 2003, the juvenile court terminated Jane's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (children are four years of age or older, children adjudicated in need of assistance, children removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and children cannot be returned home) (Supp. 2001). Jane appeals. She contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be returned to her custody. She also contends the State failed to offer reasonable efforts towards reunification.
We review termination of parental rights orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
In order to terminate Jane's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), the State was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be returned to their mother's care. In its ruling terminating Jane's parental rights, the trial court made the following observations:
Taking the evidence as a whole the Court concludes that Jane B. suffers from a mental illness: bipolar condition with psychotic features and borderline personality disorder. This chronic condition has lead to behavior that has frightened and alienated her daughters. It has specifically prevented the girls from forming a bond with their mother, which would and should be the cornerstone of a healthy parent-child relationship.
The record reflects that Ms. B. is focused on how the world treats her, not how she has treated her children. A primary hallmark of appropriate successful parenting is the consistent ability of a parent to place the needs of the child before their own. That is lacking in this case.
The Court appreciates the observations of Ms. B.'s former attorney, former paramour and her friends. Without attributing to them an ill motive, the Court believes their relationship with Ms. B. skews their assessment of her. The most objective observer intimately involved with the children, Ms. Gyldenvand, mitigates against that well intended bias and makes clear the girls' true feelings: they neither feel safe with, nor want anything to do with their mother.
The trial court also noted, "Every professional who has provided services to this family, with the exception of Dr. Nordine, concludes the children cannot be returned to the care of Jane B."
The record reflects Dr. Nordine had never met the children nor had he witnessed Jane interact with them.
Our de novo review convinces us the record supports the court's findings and conclusions. Since the children were removed from her care, Jane has demonstrated little, if any, improvement on the circumstances which led to the initial adjudication. Her chronic unpredictable and erratic behavior continues to put the children under emotional stress. Jane has shown up uninvited at the father's home, the girls' therapy sessions, and their school. She has ignored therapy, canceled visits at the last minute, caused a scene at a Christmas party, and assaulted an in-home worker in the presence of the children. The children clearly are afraid of their mother and do not feel safe with her. They do not want visitation with her. The children's therapist indicated that preparing the children for visitation with their mother would take at least two months. We conclude the State has proven all of the grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(f) by clear and convincing evidence.
Jane also claims the State did not make reasonable efforts towards reunification as required under Iowa Code section 232.102(7). A challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised at the removal or review hearing when services are offered. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). When the parent alleging inadequate services fails to demand services other than those provided, the issue of whether services were adequate is not preserved for appellate review. In the Interest of S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). We question whether error has been preserved on this issue. The court made findings on November 20, 2001, December 18, 2001, and May 1, 2002, that no party was requesting additional services. Even if error was preserved, Jane's argument is without merit. The record reveals the Department of Human Services offered an array of services to Jane, including individual mental health services, and parent skills education through two separate in-home providers. Jane quit two different therapists provided by the Department. Jane failed to take advantage of in-home visitation services choosing, rather, to assault the in-home services provider.
We conclude clear and convincing evidence supports termination of Jane's parental rights. We agree with the juvenile court's conclusion that termination of her parental rights serves the children's best interests. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.