Opinion
No. 5-484 / 05-0714
Filed June 29, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter. AFFIRMED.
John Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Richard Mitvalsky of Gray, Stefani Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
A father appeals from the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his daughter. He contends the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his daughter. On de novo review, we affirm.
Bobby is the father and Amber the mother of Alexandra, born in March 2003. Alexandra tested positive for cocaine in her system at birth, but was allowed to remain in her mother's care because Amber agreed to participate in services and to live with her parents. At the time of Alexandra's birth, Bobby was in custody on charges of manufacturing methamphetamine. While in jail, he saw Alexandra a couple of times "through the glass." In the summer of 2003 Bobby was given a ten-year suspended sentence and put on probation in a community corrections center. He had visitation once with Alexandra while at the community corrections center. Because of his continued drug use and an attempt to leave the corrections center, Bobby's probation was revoked and he was sent to the corrections facility in Clarinda in October 2003. He remained incarcerated throughout the remainder of this case, with a projected release date of April 2007.
The juvenile court terminated both parents' rights, but Amber is not involved in this appeal.
In October 2004 the State petitioned to terminate both parents' rights to Alexandra. Following a hearing in March 2005, the juvenile court terminated both parents' rights by order filed April 19, 2005, under the statutory grounds found in Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) (failure to maintain significant and meaningful contact), (h) (child three or younger cannot be returned home), and ( l) (parent's substance abuse presents a danger and child cannot be returned within a reasonable time) (2005).
On appeal, Bobby does not challenge any of the statutory grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court. Rather, he contends the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his daughter. Specifically, he argues the State "did not initially assess the circumstances of [Bobby's] situation and offer . . . the requisite services tailored for his circumstance." In response, the State argues that Bobby did not request different or additional services and that his own actions led to his incarceration, preventing the offer and receipt of services. The State also points to unsuccessful reunification efforts made when Bobby's two older children were removed.
One is in relative placement; the other has been adopted.
"Reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child are required prior to the termination of parental rights." In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 294 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). "While the State has the obligation to provide reasonable reunification services, [a parent has] the obligation to demand other, different or additional services prior to the termination hearing." In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). The reasonable-efforts requirement, however,
is not viewed as a strict substantive requirement of termination. Instead, the scope of the efforts by the DHS to reunify parent and child after removal impacts the burden of proving those elements of termination which require reunification efforts. The State must show reasonable efforts as a part of its ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000).
The August 2004 affidavit by Patricia Garza, a social worker for the Department of Human Services, shows an assessment was made concerning what services had been offered to Bobby, his failure to profit from them, Alexandra's age, the lack of any bonding, the location of Alexandra and Bobby, the nature of his offense, and the length of his incarceration. See In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000). We conclude the State's efforts to reunite Bobby and Alexandra were reasonable under the circumstances before us. We also find no evidence Bobby requested different or additional reunification services from the State. We affirm the termination of his parental rights.