Opinion
No. 5-128 / 05-0010
Filed February 24, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A.H. appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her minor child. AFFIRMED.
David Backstrom, Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Christopher Kragnes, Sr., Des Moines, for father.
Charles Fuson of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Annette and Andrew are the parents of Andrew Jr., born in July 2003. Annette was sixteen years old when Andrew Jr. was born. She had been adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) and was placed at the House of Mercy. Annette received services through her own CINA adjudication. Concerns about Annette's ability to care for Andrew Jr. arose due to Annette's history of mental instability and lack of parenting skills.
A CINA adjudication hearing for Andrew Jr. was held in October 2003. The juvenile court determined Andrew Jr. could be adjudicated CINA under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise), but withheld adjudication at that time. Annette entered an independent living program which did not allow infants, and Andrew Jr. was placed with Annette's adopted sister, Jean.
Annette remained unable to care for Andrew Jr. She had a drug test which was positive for marijuana. In April 2004 the juvenile court entered CINA adjudication and disposition orders. Annette was ordered to have a psychosocial evaluation, provide drug tests, and have a substance abuse evaluation. In May 2004 Annette was discharged from the independent living program due to failure to follow rules. She moved to Waterloo and subsequently had no further visits with Andrew Jr. and did not participate in services.
An order was entered in July 2004 prohibiting Annette from contacting Jean, due to her threats to remove Andrew Jr. from Jean's home. Annette returned to Des Moines in August 2004, but did not resume visitation or services. In September 2004 the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parents' rights. About a week later Annette was charged with the delinquent acts of third-degree burglary and interference with official acts.
The juvenile court terminated the parents' rights under sections 232.116(1)(b) (abandonment), (d) (circumstances continue despite the receipt of services), (e) (parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact), (h) (child is three or younger and cannot be safely returned home), and (l) (parent has substance abuse problem and child cannot be returned within a reasonable time). The juvenile court found:
This child cannot be returned to either parent at the date of the termination hearing. The parents have neither accessed nor cooperated with services. They cannot parent Andrew. The child has been removed from his parental home for over a year. Return to the home of either parent as this time would be contrary to his welfare for the reasons found above. He would suffer further adjudicatory harm, if returned to the custody of either parent.
Annette appeals.
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
Annette claims the State did not present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of her parental rights. She admits that she had not visited Andrew Jr. for about five and one-half months at the time of the termination hearing. Annette now asserts that her social worker at the Department of Human Services (DHS) should have tried harder to contact her.
Abandonment is characterized as a giving up of parental rights and responsibilities accompanied by an intent to forego them. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). Parental responsibilities include more than subjectively maintaining an interest in a child. In re D.M., 516 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 1994). The concept requires affirmative parenting to the extent it is practical and feasible in the circumstances. Id.
We conclude Annette abandoned Andrew Jr. when she moved to Waterloo and had no further contact with her child. Annette knew how to contact her social worker, but even after she moved back to Des Moines she did not take steps to reinitiate visitation with her child. Because we have affirmed on the ground of abandonment, we do not need to address the other grounds for termination set forth by the juvenile court. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
IV. Reasonable Efforts
Annette contends the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite her with her child. She again asserts that DHS workers should have done more to keep in contact with her. Prior to termination of parental rights, the State has the obligation to offer reasonable services to preserve the family unit. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). A parent, however, has the responsibility to challenge or object to the services provided prior to the termination hearing. In re M.B., 595 N.W.2d 815, 818 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
Annette did not request different or additional services prior to the termination hearing. We conclude she did not preserve this issue for our review. Even if this issue had been preserved, we note that after May 2004, Annette did not participate in the services which were offered to her. The State's efforts were reasonable under the facts of the case.
V. Best Interests
Annette asserts termination of her parental rights is not in Andrew Jr.'s best interests. 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 child. In re 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 Annette's parental rights is in Andrew Jr.'s best interests. Annette's actions do not show an interest in her child. Andrew Jr. should not be required to wait longer for Annette to be in a position to adequately parent him.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.