Opinion
No. 6-002 / 05-1902
Filed January 19, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Michael R. Stewart, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John Trewet of Rutherford, Trewet Knuth, Atlantic, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Charles A. Stream, County Attorney, and Misty White-Reinier, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Joel Yates of Clements Law Firm, Oskaloosa, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered en banc.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Jeffrey and Lisa are the parents of Ariel, who was born in 1994. Jeffrey last exercised visitation with Ariel in December 2001. He spoke to her on the telephone in December 2002. Jeffrey has not paid court-ordered child support. In January 2003, Ariel reported that she previously had been sexually abused by Jeffrey. The Iowa Department of Human Services issued a confirmed report of sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey.
Ariel was removed from Lisa's care in February 2003. Ariel was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise). Notice of the juvenile court proceedings was sent to Jeffrey. He was ordered to contact the department if he wished to have supervised visitation or to participate in services.
Jeffrey contacted the department in January 2004 and stated he wanted to maintain a parental relationship with Ariel. He stated he was not aware of the removal until this time. The juvenile court ordered that an interstate compact home study be completed on Jeffrey's home in Kentucky. This request was later deleted, however, because of the previous confirmed report of sexual abuse. In any event, Jeffrey did not respond to requests for information.
The State sought to terminate the parents' rights. Jeffrey appeared at the termination hearing in November 2004 and stated that he had not received adequate notice of the hearing and requested that he be considered as a placement for Ariel. At that time Jeffrey was living in Nebraska, and the juvenile court reinstated the order for an interstate compact home study. The report was generally positive, but did not address the allegations of sexual abuse. Jeffrey sent one e-mail to the department in March 2005. Throughout the CINA proceedings he did not request visitation with Ariel.
Lisa's parental rights were terminated by the juvenile court, and she did not appeal.
In July 2005, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Jeffrey's parental rights to Ariel. The juvenile court terminated Jeffrey's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(e) (2005) (child CINA, removed at least six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact). The court found, "After not seeing the child for almost four years, the father wants an opportunity to establish a relationship with his daughter. It is simply too late." The court concluded that termination of Jeffrey's parental rights was in Ariel's best interests. Jeffrey appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interest of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Reasonable Efforts
Jeffrey contends the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite him with Ariel. The State has an obligation to make reasonable efforts, but it is the parent's responsibility to demand services if they are not offered prior to the termination hearing. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Here, Jeffrey had minimal contact with the department and there is no evidence that he requested services prior to the termination hearing. We conclude the services offered by the State were reasonable under the facts of this case.
IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Jeffrey claims the State did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with his child. He claims that if he did not have contact with his child, it was due to the neglect of the department. He asserts he did not believe he could have visitation until the home study was completed in May 2005.
The evidence shows Jeffrey last visited Ariel in December 2001, and last spoke to her in December 2002. Jeffrey made little to no effort to contact the department until after the first termination petition was filed. As the juvenile court found, Jeffrey's efforts were simply too late. Jeffrey allowed years to pass by before he attempted to become a presence in his child's life. We conclude Jeffrey's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(e).