Opinion
No. 2-1024 / 02-1870
Filed January 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Father appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his son. AFFIRMED.
Lori Holm, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Steve Bayans, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Ronald M. is the father of Ricky M., who was born on June 13, 2001. Ronald was incarcerated in August of 2001 after his probation on operating while intoxicated and willful injury charges were revoked. On September 5, 2001, Ricky was adjudicated to be in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2001). On June 28, 2002, the State filed a petition to terminate Ronald's parental rights to Ricky, and following a trial, the juvenile court terminated Ronald's rights under sections 232.116(1)(a), (c), (d), (g), (h), and (i) (Supp. 2001). Ronald appeals.
We review termination 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).
Ronald first asserts the State provided inadequate services and did not make reasonable efforts to reunify him with Ricky. We note Ronald requested, and was denied, both visitation and additional services at a June 17, 2002, review hearing. The court recommended he take advantage of services offered in the prison. At trial Ronald testified he took part in a substance abuse program, anger management classes, and attended regular NA/AA meetings. The services required to be supplied an incarcerated parent, as with any other parent, are only those that are reasonable under the circumstances. See In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000) (listing the factors to consider in determining what services are reasonable). Based on the distance involved in transporting a very young child to visitation at the prison, Ronald's expected release date of September of 2003, the fact that Ronald never lived with or cared for Ricky, and the fact Ronald had his parental rights previously terminated to another child, we conclude it was reasonable under the circumstances for the court to decline ordering services provided in addition to those available to Ronald within the prison system. Furthermore, we also reject Ronald's contentions the court erred in granting additional time to enable reunification and in determining termination was in Ricky's best interests.