Opinion
No. 5-046 / 04-1952
Filed January 26, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
R.T. and J.T. appeal from the termination of their parental rights to J.T. AFFIRMED.
Heather Dickinson, West Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Edward Bull of Bull Law Office, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Andrea Vitzthum, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Kimberly Ayotte of Youth Law Center, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Rhonda and Jonathan Sr. (Jon) are the parents of Jonathan Jr., born in August 2000. Jonathan was removed from the parents' care in August 2003, due to allegations that Jon had sexually abused his step-daughter, Tamara. Both parents have a lengthy history of substance abuse. Jonathan was placed with his maternal grandmother.
Jonathan was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise) and (n) (parent's drug abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). The parents were ordered to have substance abuse and psychosocial evaluations.
In March 2004 the juvenile court entered a supplemental adjudicatory order which found Jonathan was also a child in need of assistance based on section 232.2(6)(d) (child is imminently likely to be sexually abused).
The parents completed a psychosocial evaluation. Both parents completed an outpatient substance abuse treatment program, but subsequently relapsed at least once. Both parents had many instances when they did not provide a drug test as requested. Jon did not attend any treatment for sexual abuse offenders. Jon denied that he sexually abused Tamara. Rhonda continued to believe Jon instead of her daughter.
In April 2004 Jonathan was placed in foster care because of continued conflicts between Rhonda and the maternal grandmother. Also, Rhonda's visitation was changed from semi-supervised to supervised because she bit Jonathan, allowed Jon to have unapproved contact with the child, and had a recent positive drug test.
In July 2004 the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the parents' rights. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Rhonda and Jon under sections 232.116(1)(d) (child CINA for sexual abuse or neglect and circumstances continue despite the receipt of services), (h) (child 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 court noted the parents continued to deny the sexual abuse of Tamara. Also, it found "[b]oth parents have significant substance abuse addictions that have not been remedied." The court concluded termination was in Jonathan's best interests. "Jonathan has already waited for more than one year and should not be forced to wait endlessly for his parents to resolve their own problems." Rhonda and Jon 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
The parents claim there is insufficient evidence in the record to warrant termination of their parental rights. We determine there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of their parental rights. Jon has not entered any sexual offender treatment. Rhonda continues to believe that Tamara was not sexually abused. Due to these problems, Jonathan continues to be at risk of being sexually abused if he were returned to their care. Also, Jonathan would be at risk of physical abuse if returned home, due to the fact Rhonda bit Jonathan during a semi-supervised visit. In addition, the parents are still addressing their substance abuse problems. Neither parent is in a position to care for Jonathan at this time.
IV. Reasonable Efforts
Jon claims the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite him with Jonathan. Jon asserts the State should have paid for a sexual abuse evaluation for him. Jon believes an evaluation was necessary to determine whether he needed sexual abuse treatment. There is a requirement that the State offer reasonable services to preserve the family unit. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
The juvenile court addressed this issue and found:
The Court did not provide funds for a sex offender evaluation for two reasons: (1) Toni Bell [in the psychosocial evaluation] recommended treatment, not an evaluation; (2) Court-ordered services funding would have been ill-spent on an evaluation wherein the subject of the evaluation was going to continue to deny that the sexual abuse ever occurred.
We find the State's actions reasonable under the facts of this case. We note the State provided Jon with a psychosocial evaluation which recommended sexual offender treatment.
V. Best Interests
Rhonda and Jon claim termination of their parental rights is not in Jonathan'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.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 at 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).
We conclude termination of the parents' rights is in Jonathan's best interests. The parents are still dealing with their own problems and are unable to meet Jonathan's needs.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.