Opinion
No. 6-208 / 06-0130
Filed April 12, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the termination of their parental rights to two of their children. AFFIRMED.
Karen Mailander of Mailander Law Office, Anita, for appellant-mother.
William T. Early of Kohorst, Early Louis, Harlan, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Francine O'Brien Anderson, County Attorney, for appellee.
James Tinker, Audubon, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Cassandra and Damon, the parents of Caden, Zara, and Tucker, appeal from the order terminating their parental rights to Caden and Zara. They contend the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunite the family in that adequate visitation was not provided. They do not challenge any of the statutory grounds cited by the court for terminating their parental rights. On de novo review, Iowa R. App. P. 6.4, we affirm.
The children were found to be in need of assistance in January of 2003 and last removed from their parents' care in April of 2003. Dispositional, review, and permanency hearings in 2003 and 2004 continued the children's placement in foster family care. In July of 2004 the court directed the State to initiate termination proceedings. The State filed a petition to terminate parental rights in August of 2005. The original hearing on the petition was continued to December to allow the parents more time for reunification. Following the December hearing, the court terminated the parents' rights in January of 2006 under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e), (f) [Caden], (g) [Zara], and (i) (2005).
The parents contend "there were great difficulties in getting visitations between the children and their parents." They assert:
The Department always had the power to provide regular visits in the [parents'] home and was not willing to do this. After this was ordered, the situation improved. The real problem now in reuniting these children to their parents is that the children have admittedly bonded with the foster parents. . . . The problem is not the home and it is not the parents. It is simply that instead of trying to reunite this family, the Department allowed a de facto termination to take place simply by minimizing contact with the biological parents and at the same time letting the children grow up under the pleasant circumstances of the foster home.
While we agree visitation has been an issue, we find from the record that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunite this family and to accommodate the demands of the parents concerning visitation. The following example illustrates the efforts the Department made to provide visitation and how those efforts were frustrated.
Visitation is occurring on weekends with the foster parents supervising. Damon requests that the foster parents not supervise. The case worker is not available on weekends. The case worker and Cassandra tentatively agree on alternating Mondays to coincide with Damon's batterer's education program classes so he would not have to miss more work. Damon said he was embarrassed to ask his supervisor for the time off. The case worker arranged to transport the children to a neutral location closer to the parents. After a month of trying to schedule a visit, with Damon not having asked about weekday visitation, the case worker finally got Cassandra to agree to a visit even though Damon couldn't attend. At the visit, Cassandra told the case worker she and Damon had spoken with their lawyer and that visitation should be changed back to weekends with the foster parents supervising. During a telephone call about a week later, the case worker remarked to Cassandra that if they had not requested that the visitation be changed from weekends, they probably still would be having them on weekends as they wanted to now. Cassandra and the case worker tentatively scheduled a visit for a Monday a couple of weeks later. Later that day, Damon told the case worker that he had to take time off work the Monday before the scheduled visit for an appointment with his probation officer and said the visitation should be moved to the earlier Monday. The case worker had a conflict on the earlier date and she asked Damon to contact his probation officer to see if his appointment could be moved to the date of the visitation. When she did not hear back from Damon, the case worker scheduled a visit for the later Monday. Damon called the evening of his appointment with his probation officer and asked if the scheduled visit could be moved to a later date when he had to take time off for a court date. The case worker agreed and rescheduled the visit. Two days before the visit, the case worker called to confirm. Cassandra said she was ill and wanted to reschedule. She also said the court date was wrong. The worker rescheduled the visit again to the correct court date. The end result of all of these efforts over a two-month period was only one visit by Cassandra and one by Damon and Cassandra.
As an aid to visitation, the Department changed days, locations, and supervisors. It provided gas cards to help the parents come to visitation. It arranged for the children to be transported to the parents. We find the efforts the Department made concerning visitation were reasonable. Visitation, however, is only one facet of reasonable efforts to reunify families. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996); see Iowa Code § 232.102(10)(a) (listing examples of reasonable efforts). Although the parents do not challenge the other reunification efforts, we find the other services offered or provided to help reunify the family were reasonable.