Opinion
No. 5-044 / 04-1264
Filed February 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, David C. Larson, District Associate Judge.
E.K. and M.K. appeal the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Michael H. Johnson of Stoller Johnson, Spirit Lake, for appellant mother.
Pamela Wingert of Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Rosalise Olson, County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Shannon Sandy of Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Elaine and Michael are the parents of three children, Alexis, born in September 1997; Marissa, born in August 2000; and Bryson, born in November 2001. Michael has been incarcerated since January 2002, following a robbery conviction.
All three children were removed in December 2002 after Bryson was physically abused. Although authorities suspected Bryson was abused by Elaine's boyfriend, Chris, the identity of the responsible person was not determined. Elaine pleaded guilty to and was convicted of child endangerment for failing to protect Bryson from physical abuse. A post removal evaluation indicated Alexis suffered from an anxiety disorder and displayed other behaviors consistent with physical abuse.
The children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child). On July 16, 2003, the juvenile court entered a dispositional order. The children's foster care placement was continued. Elaine was ordered to participate in parenting skills classes. She was also ordered to submit to a psychological evaluation and to follow all resulting recommendations.
In January 2004 the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parents' rights. The juvenile court terminated the parents' rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(f) (Alexis) (child four or older and cannot be safely returned home) and (h) (Marissa and Bryson) (child three or younger and cannot be safely returned home). The juvenile court noted that because Elaine did not follow through with services, "the issues of supervision and protection have not been resolved." The court determined termination was in the children's best interests. Elaine and Michael appeal.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Elaine challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination of her parental rights. She cites the end of her relationship with the person suspected of abusing her children as proof that the children can safely be returned to her care. We disagree.
The juvenile court found Elaine's claim that she was no longer in contact with her boyfriend was not credible, and we defer to that finding. See Iowa R. App. 6.14(6)( g). Moreover, Elaine's claim ignores the fact that the adjudicatory harm resulted from her failure to protect the children from physical harm. The juvenile court correctly noted Elaine did not follow through with services and "the issues of supervision and protection have not been resolved." The record includes clear and convincing evidence indicating Elaine is in no better position to protect her children than she was when the State intervened. Elaine's parental rights were properly terminated under sections 232.116(1)(f) and (h).
IV. Reasonable Efforts
Elaine and Michael each claim the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunite their family. Elaine asserts that she should have been granted unsupervised visitation. Michael asserts he should have been granted more visitation.
Reasonable services must be provided to attempt to reunite a family before the State can terminate parental rights. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Reasonable efforts include a visitation arrangement designed to facilitate reunification while protecting the children from the harm responsible for the removal. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). The nature and extent of visitation is controlled by the best interests of the children. Id.
We determine the services offered in this case were reasonable. As noted above, because Elaine did not follow through with services, there were concerns about her ability to protect the children. Michael had one visit with the children at the prison. Michael was considered violent and was often isolated from the other prisoners. In these circumstances, we find the amount of visitation granted to the parents was reasonable. Further visitation would not have been in the children's best interests. We affirm on this issue.
V. Best Interests
Elaine and Michael claim termination of their parental rights is not in the children's best interests. Elaine asserts there was a strong bond of affection between herself and the children. Michael agrees that the children should remain in Elaine's care.
Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the children. In re M.M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In considering a child's best interests, we look to the child's long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).
We conclude termination of the parents' rights is in the children's best interests. The parents were unable to meet the children's needs for safety and stability.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.