Opinion
No. 5-369 / 05-0397
Filed April 28, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Victor G. Lathrop, Associate Juvenile Judge.
L.N. and P.H. appeal from the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John J. Haney of Hinshaw, Danielson, Kloberdanz Haney, P.C., Marshalltown, for appellant father.
Randal Giannetto of Mowry Law Firm, Marshalltown, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Miller, County Attorney, and Susan Klaessy, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Reyne L. See of Johnson, Sudenga, Latham, Peglow O'Hare, P.L.C., Marshalltown, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
LeRoy and Priscilla are the parents of two children: Lora, age six and Tina, age five. The family first received services from the Department of Human Services in 2000 to address concerns over the children's exposure to lead based paint and resulting lead concentrations. In 2002 the Department assisted LeRoy and Priscilla in addressing the unsafe and unsanitary condition of their family home. In September 2002 the children were placed with relatives because of additional safety and sanitation issues relating to the family home.
In October 2002 the State filed a CINA petition concerning both children based on the condition of the family home and resulting risks of harm. Action on the petition was deferred to allow Priscilla time to find a suitable residence as well as implementation of protective daycare services. When these efforts failed, a temporary removal order issued, and an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for April 22, 2003. At that hearing, LeRoy and Priscilla conceded the merits of the State's petition. As a result, Lara and Tina were adjudicated children in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(g) (parent fails to provide adequate food, clothing, or shelter). The dispositional order entered the same day placed Lara and Tina with relatives. Leroy and Pricilla were both ordered to participate in individual therapy and family-centered services.
In September 2004 the State filed a petition requesting termination of Priscilla's and LeRoy's parental rights. The court, after a hearing on the merits, terminated their parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, adjudicated a child in need of assistance, removed at least twelve months, and cannot be safely returned home). The court's termination order provides:
The Court finds there is clear and convincing evidence that at this time LeRoy cannot provide a safe, stable living environment for his children. He is living in a home that title is questionable and is totally inappropriate for habitation. Priscilla also cannot provide a safe, stable living environment for her children. She is residing with her mother-in-law in a home that is owned by the mother-in-law. There does not appear to be sufficient room for two children to be in that home, and certainly the plan does not appear to include LeRoy. It does not appear from the evidence provided that LeRoy or Priscilla has any understanding of how to manage money to allow them to obtain and maintain an appropriate home and living environment for themselves and two children. It does not appear any progress has been made since the commencement of these proceedings. There is clear and convincing evidence that if returned to the parents at this time both Tina and Lara would continue to be children in need of assistance as defined by Section 232.2(6)(g), Code of Iowa, as well as other statutory definitions. . . .
The juvenile court, citing the children's need for permanency, also determined termination of parental rights was in their best interests. LeRoy and Priscilla 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). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. LeRoy
A.
LeRoy contends the State failed to engage in reasonable efforts to reunite him with his children. While the State has an obligation to make reasonable efforts, a parent has the 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). The juvenile court determined, "[LeRoy] did not take advantage of those services offered, and it does not appear from a review of the court file that he ever requested any additional services." We conclude LeRoy has not preserved this issue for our review.
B.
LeRoy claims the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support termination of his parental rights. A good prediction of future conduct of a parent is to look at the past conduct. In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). We note that patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for the children. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). We find clear and convincing evidence to support termination of LeRoy's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f). It is clear the children cannot be safely returned to LeRoy's care. LeRoy's home presents a risk of danger to the children.
C.
LeRoy asserts termination of his parental rights is not in the best interests of the children. As the juvenile court noted, the children need a permanent and safe living environment, which LeRoy is unable to provide. We concur in the juvenile court's assessment that termination of LeRoy's parental rights is in the best interests of the children.
LeRoy also relies upon section 232.116(3)(c), which provides that the court need not terminate if it would be detrimental to a child due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship. We determine LeRoy did not preserve error on this issue because he did not raise it below, and the juvenile court did not refer to this code section. See In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (noting an issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal).
IV. Priscilla
A.
Priscilla contends the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that her parental rights should be terminated. She claims the children could be returned to her care because the paternal grandmother's home was adequate. We note that this home was very small, and it was right next door to LeRoy's home, which contained many safety hazards. Despite repeated requests by service providers, and offers of assistance, Priscilla did not obtain a residence of her own where the children could be returned to her care. We agree with the juvenile court's conclusion that Priscilla was unable to provide a safe and stable environment for the children.
B.
Priscilla claims termination of her parental rights is not in the best interests of the children. For the same reasons discussed above regarding LeRoy, we conclude termination of Priscilla's parental right is in the best interests of the children.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.