Opinion
No. 5-694 / 05-1359
Filed October 12, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Mark Eveloff, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the district court's order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Scott D. Strait of Shanks Law Firm, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Dawn Eimers, Assistant County Attorney.
Ryan Sewell, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
This appeal involves Anita, the mother of two eight-year-old twins, S.J.S. and L.J.S., whose rights were terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) (2005) (abandonment), (e) (child CINA, child removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child), and (f) (child four or older, child CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months and cannot be returned home). While Anita claims several areas of deficiency in the district court's ruling, her issues on appeal can be reviewed as: (1) failure of the State to prove and the court to make a finding that it is in the best interests of the children to have their mother's parental rights terminated; and (2) failure of the State to offer reasonable services to the mother that would correct the conditions that placed them in adjudicatory harm. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
The children in this case had been placed with their maternal aunt, Cheryl, under the supervision of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) from July 2003 until their removal in June 2004. Anita had left them with Cheryl in July 2002, from whom DHS removed the children due to concerns over their living arrangements and the presence of a sex offender in the home. At removal in June 2004, the children were placed in Children's Square Shelter in Council Bluffs for approximately one month and then placed together in family foster care.
The children were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) in September 2003, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(j) (2003) (child is without a parent, guardian, or other custodian). The district court did not find clear and convincing evidence of abandonment as grounds for CINA under section 232.2(6)(a) and dismissed that portion of the CINA petition. The State filed the petition to terminate Anita's parental rights on January 10, 2005, on the following grounds under the 2005 Iowa Code sections: 232.116(1)(b), 232.116(1)(e), and 232.116(1)(f). The district court held the termination hearing on March 7, 2005, but held the case for submission pending completion of Anita's home study in Texas, received on June 29, and issued its order terminating Anita's parental rights on August 9, 2005.
The parental rights of Larry, Sr., the children's father, were also terminated, but he does not appeal.
I. Scope 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).
II. Best Interests.
Anita asserts that the State did not prove, nor did the district court make a finding that termination was in the children's best interests. While the district court did not make a specific reference to Iowa Code section 232.116(2), it did find on page 10 of the termination order "it is in the best interest of the children to have permanency in their lives, and therefore, to approve the petition for termination of parental rights in this matter." Throughout the court's findings and analysis in the termination order, the court cited various facts encompassing the considerations listed under Iowa Code section 232.116(2). Furthermore, the district court cited to the previous orders of the case, including the CINA adjudication, CINA disposition and review modification orders, referencing and incorporating the findings of those orders in the termination order. The findings of the previous orders were neither objected to nor appealed by Anita. We find that the State proved termination was in the children's best interests, and the district court did consider and make a best interest's determination in the order terminating Anita's parental rights.
"2. In considering whether to terminate the rights of a parent under this section, the court shall give primary consideration to the child's safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child." Iowa Code § 232.116(2) (2005).
Anita also contends that it was not in the children's best interests to have her rights terminated. The children received various services throughout the case, including outpatient mental health services and family centered services through Visinet of Iowa. Each child is suspected, although not confirmed, to have suffered sexual abuse and neglect in the past, with Larry, Sr. identified by the children as the perpetrator of the sexual abuse. L.J.S. has been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, for which he takes medication. S.J.S. has also been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Reactive Attachment Disorder. Each of the children has received ongoing counseling and therapy to address their issues. The children have progressed well in their academic pursuits and social interactions after being placed in family foster care. The children have been removed from their mother's care for nearly three years, and Anita has not otherwise attempted to return to Iowa to participate in any services with the children. Anita has not attended any of the court proceedings in this case but has been represented by counsel at the various hearings. We agree with the district court that S.J.S. and L.J.S.'s best interests are served by the termination of Anita's parental rights.
While in Cheryl's care prior to removal, the children had recurring issues with personal hygiene, school absences, and concentration either due to sleepiness or constantly asking for food. These issues have not been present after placement in family foster care.
III. Reasonable Efforts by DHS.
Anita also alleges that DHS did not use reasonable efforts to promote reunification and prevent termination. See Iowa Code § 232.102(10)(a) (2005). Anita did object to services as early as the CINA review/modification hearing on March 16, 2004, but solely regarding DHS's failure to process the home study in Texas through Interstate Compact. Anita failed to object on any other grounds to services offered prior to termination, thereby waiving additional grounds on appeal. See In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 692 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000). While noting DHS's failure to timely complete the home study requests, the district court ruled at that time that the children would not have been placed with either parent regardless of a favorable recommendation of the home study. The district court reiterated this finding in the termination order:
The Court specifically found the father's lack of effort in making contact with his children or the Iowa Department of Human Services indicated a critical lack of responsibility. Likewise, the Court found [Anita's] years of failure to provide for her children, or her four older children, indicated a critical lack of responsibility. The Court specifically found that neither parent is able or willing to care for their children.
The core of the reasonable efforts mandate is that the child welfare agency must make reasonable efforts to prevent placement or to reunify families in each case. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). While efforts made by the state to reunify a family may not be successful, this does not mean that the efforts were unreasonable. Id. Anita was provided services to assist with reunification, in the form of supervised visitation and home studies through Interstate Compact. The district court found as of the CINA permanency hearing on October 21, 2004, that Anita had not responded to services. Texas social workers attempting to conduct a home study of Anita could not locate her at the address provided. Anita contacted the DHS case manager in October 2004 by telephone to inform DHS of her recent move, but refused to give DHS her new address or the name of the friend with whom she was living. A home study was eventually completed by the Texas social workers, ultimately recommending against placement of the children with Anita. We find that DHS provided Anita with reasonable services to attempt reunification with her children. We affirm the termination of Anita's parental rights to S.J.S. and L.J.S.