Opinion
No. 5-461 / 05-0609
Filed June 15, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.
Michael, a father, appeals the termination of parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Neill Kroeger, Davenport, for father-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Jean Wahlen, Davenport, for the mother.
Patrick Kelly, Bettendorf, guardian ad litem for the child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Michael appeals the termination of his parental rights to Kurt, born in September 1999. He contends termination is not in the child's best interests. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). On our de novo review, we disagree.
Kurt was removed from his mother's care in late 2002, due to her mental health and concerns that delusions she was experiencing might result in harm to the child. Michael had no contact with his child before or after these proceedings, as the mother did not allow him any visitation and the Department of Human Services determined he did not satisfy its expectations for initiating contact.
These expectations centered on Michael's mental health. Michael reported he was institutionalized at mental health facilities. He also reported a lengthy criminal history, including a conviction for assault and battery in 1985. Later in the proceedings, he admitted to having sex with a teenager approximately two and a half years before the termination hearing.
Based on the Department's concerns, the district court delayed the provision of family-centered services "until there is complete documentation of his mental health status and participation in recommended treatment." The court stated, "[i]t is necessary that he provide a written evaluation, a treatment plan and proof of compliance with the treatment plan."
The following month, a Department worker noted that Michael had "made no contact with this therapist regarding sessions as requested." While the Department later received a letter from Michael's psychiatrist advising that he was "suitable to visit with his child, initially with supervision," the agency deemed this letter inadequate to comply with the court's stated expectations. The Department's view was corroborated by a social worker at the same facility as the psychiatrist, who reported that Michael was "unsuccessfully discharged" from a sexual offender group. The social worker opined that Michael might have a "significant personality disorder" and that Michael was not an "appropriate candidate for outpatient sexual offender treatment."
Around the same time, a Department social worker noted that Michael had
"been less than cooperative, threatening to sue the agency and file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, attempting to be verbally intimidating to workers, and has refused to believe he needed to follow through with the services recommended." The employee continued, "Mike has been provided ample time and opportunity to participate and accomplish all the services that have been recommended for him. He has chosen not to follow through with those recommendations." She opined it was not in Kurt's best interests to have any contact with Michael. The juvenile court agreed, stating "[a]ny thought of visitation must be conditioned upon the father's compliance with those requirements of the court order."
We acknowledge that, in 2004, Michael attended three of three scheduled appointments to discuss mental health issues and participated in a psychosocial evaluation of Kurt. We also note his testimony that he discontinued the sex offender treatment program only "because of money reasons." Nevertheless, the record supports the district and juvenile courts' determinations that Michael did not engage in the intensive mental health treatment that had been envisioned. As a result, Michael did not receive services designed to address parenting. This was problematic because Kurt had special needs that, in the words of a therapist, required "better than average parenting skills." Michael was not in a position to satisfy these needs. Therefore, we conclude termination of Michael's parental rights to Kurt was in Kurt's best interests.
AFFIRMED.
Huitink, J. concurs, Sackett, C.J. concurs specially without opinion.