Opinion
No. 6-003 / 05-1615
Filed February 1, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Jane E. Rosien of Flander, Casper Rosien, P.C., Winterset, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Marla McCoid, Bondurant, for father.
Michael Bandstra, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered en banc.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Tina and Matthew are the parents of Tia, born in September 2004. Tia was removed from Tina's care when she was about two weeks old because Tina failed to recognized that Tia had a serious medical condition which required hospitalization, and could have resulted in death. Tina had been mixing the child's formula incorrectly, making it twice as strong as it should have been, which resulted in metabolic problems caused by dehydration. When she was released from the hospital, Tia was placed in foster care.
Matthew has had no contact with Tia during her life, and he is not a party to this appeal.
Tia 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), (g) (parent fails to provide adequate food, clothing, or shelter), and (n) (parent's mental capacity results in child not receiving adequate care). Tina was ordered to access services to allow her to learn to parent Tia independently.
A psychosocial evaluation determined Tina had low intellectual functioning. Tina also has some mental health problems. The evaluation recommended that Tina be referred to Golden Circle Behavioral Health Services for assistance in functioning more independently in life in general. The Department of Human Services made this referral in January 2005. Tina missed her first two appointments with Golden Circle, and did not meet with them until March 2005. In April 2005, Tina was referred to Crest Services, and began her participation with them in May 2005.
Tina participated in skill development sessions, but continued to lack fundamental parenting skills. Tina began individual therapy in February 2005, but was inconsistent in attending sessions. Tina attended supervised visitation. At times she became angry during visits. Tina reported to social workers that she did not believe she needed any services.
In April 2005, the guardian ad litem filed a petition seeking to terminate the parents' rights. The juvenile court terminated the parents' rights under sections 232.116(1)(e) (2005) (child CINA, removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact) and (h) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed at least six months, and cannot be returned home). The court found Tina did not have the ability to care for Tia and noted she "has not been able to meet her basic needs even with repeated instruction." The court concluded termination of the parents' rights was in Tia's best interests. Tina appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005). 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 interest of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Reasonable Efforts
A.
Tina asserts that she did not receive reasonable and appropriate services because the services were untimely. She points out that she did not begin her participation with Crest Services until May 2005, one month after the termination petition was filed. There is a requirement that reasonable services be offered to preserve the family unit. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
Here, Tina missed her first two appointments with Golden Circle, which resulted in a delay in the referral from Golden Circle to Crest Services. The delay in services was not due to inaction by the State. We conclude the services which were offered to Tina were not unreasonable because they were untimely.
B.
Tina also asserts she did not receive reasonable services because the State did not properly provide necessary background information to the in-home services provider. She states that this worker, Tommy Ross, was unaware that she was mentally retarded and that he did not tailor his services for her abilities.
It is clear that Ross recognized that Tina was intellectually low functioning because he cited her mental capacity as a reason to recommend against unsupervised visitation. Ross reported:
Tina continues to have unrealistic expectations regarding Tia's stages of development. This worker has consistently role modeled the appropriate parenting skills and repeatedly prompted Tina to act accordingly. This worker strongly feels that Tina is not being deliberately uncooperative, but rather that she lacks a fundamental understanding of critical aspects of parenting.
There was no evidence that Ross would have done anything differently if he had known the exact level of Tina's mental capacity. We conclude the services that were offered were reasonable under the facts of this case.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.
All judges concur except Sackett, C.J., who concurs specially.
I concur with the majority's decision to affirm but concur specially.
The focus of this case is whether the State made reasonable efforts to assist Tina, a young mother with limited mental abilities, to parent her young daughter. Tina has never injured or abused her daughter. She just didn't understand her child's needs and declined help after the social worker at the hospital where the child was born recommended the child would benefit from in-home services and nurse visits. Tina and Tina's mother, who was assisting her in the care of the child, mixed the child's formula double strength, which resulted in the child becoming sick three days after the child was discharged from the hospital following her birth. Tina immediately took her infant daughter to the doctor. The child was hospitalized and subsequently removed from her mother's care. Almost immediately care providers and workers realized that Tina did not have the ability to understand the child's needs and development and that there were problems with her alleged support system. Ultimately it was determined that Tina's verbal IQ was in the mentally retarded range and her areas of intelligence related to parenting were in the defective range. Various services were offered but Tina contends they were not tailored to her needs and that help from Crest Services, which would have addressed her problems in a more satisfactory manner were ordered on February 3, 2005, but there was no intake appointment with Crest Services for Tina until May 19, 2005, some eight months after the child was removed and after the petition to terminate parental rights was filed.
Tina specifically contends that the initial person working with her, while citing Tina's lack of mental capacity as a reason against recommending unsupervised visits between Tina and the child, did not know her IQ and believed she functioned above the level of mental retardation, which is not consistent with the conclusions of a psychosocial evaluation. The majority has dismissed this challenge finding there is no evidence the worker would have done anything differently had he known the level of Tina's mental capacity. I believe the question is whether the worker should have utilized different services. I believe he should have. The record reflects it would have been beneficial for Tina to receive assistance from Crest Services, which were more tailored to her problems. However, efforts were made early on to refer Tina to this agency and she failed to keep appointments. Therefore I find reasonable efforts were made.
Tina does not have the ability to learn to parent her child despite her professed love for her daughter and the efforts she has made to be a part of her life. Tina does not and has not claimed she is entitled to special accommodations under the American With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101- 12213, consequently this is not an issue that needs to be addressed.