Opinion
No. 6-182 / 06-0198
Filed March 29, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to his child. AFFIRMED.
Patricia A. Rolfstad of Zamora, Taylor, Alexander, Woods Frederick, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Robert J. Phelps, Davenport, for appellee-guardian ad litem.
Marsha Arnold, Davenport, for mother.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to his child. He contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. He also contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his child. We review his claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The father's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (e) (2005). We need only find termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Termination is proper under section 232.116(1)(e) where:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.
The father does not dispute the first two elements of this section have been proven. He contends the State has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child.
We conclude termination is proper under section 232.116(1)(e). The father physically abused the mother during their marriage. The child witnessed this abuse. As a result of the abuse, the father was sentenced to prison in November 2003. He remained in prison at the time of trial and hoped to be released in February or April 2006. As the trial court noted, "the child has no relationship with the father." Clear and convincing evidence shows he has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child.
The father also complains the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his child. In his appeal, the father complains the Department of Human Services (DHS) "did not assist or facilitate any visitation, allow for written correspondence, or any supervised contact with the father and the child whatsoever." However, a no-contact order was issued preventing the father from contacting the child. A review of the record does not reveal any other services requested by the father. The father received services while incarcerated in prison, taking classes that relate to his substance abuse and domestic abuse problems.
A parent's incarceration does not relieve the State of its responsibility to make reasonable efforts, but it can affect what services are available or possible. In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000). While the State has the obligation to make reasonable efforts, it is the parents' 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 father failed to demand any reasonable services in conjunction with this case. The only requested accommodation, contact with the child, was prohibited by court order. Termination is appropriate.