Opinion
No. 2-565 / 02-0861.
Filed July 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, JANE MYLREA, Associate Juvenile Judge.
J.H. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children. AFFIRMED.
Stuart Hoover, Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney, General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Jean Becker, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Patricia Reisen, Dubuque, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and ZIMMER, JJ.
J.H. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two daughters, A.H. and A.H., pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (children four or older, adjudicated CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and cannot be returned home) (2001). J.H. argues the district court erred in terminating her parental rights because the grounds for termination were not proven by clear and convincing evidence and the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children.
Our review in termination cases is de novo. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). J.H. disputes whether the State proved that the children could not be returned to her care. The requirement of section 232.116(1)(e)(4) is met when a child cannot be returned to the parental home because the definitional grounds of a "child in need of assistance" still exist. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293-94 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). J.H. contends this element was not proven because she has "changed her lifestyle and employment opportunities substantially in an attempt to be reunited with her two children" and any lack of progress was due to the DHS's failure to provide services sufficient to meet her needs. We disagree.
J.H.'s children were removed from her home due to numerous founded reports of denial of critical care and failure to provide adequate supervision. During the majority of the year her children were out of her care, J.H. failed to regularly attend scheduled visitation with her daughters or counseling sessions. As of the time of the termination hearing, J.H. no longer had a job or appropriate housing for two small children, and she was abusing substances. The record is replete with J.H.'s refusal to accept responsibility for the position her children are now in and decisions that subordinate the needs of the children to her own. J.H. clearly has not made sufficient progress to allow us to return the children to her care.
We moreover note that the DHS offered J.H. innumerable services, including family-centered services, mental health services, and supervised visitation. J.H., however, failed to comply with her case plan and was dishonest with the DHS regarding substance abuse issues. She cannot now blame the DHS for a lack of progress resulting from her own actions. Even if we were to conclude otherwise, we find no indication in the record that J.H. requested additional services prior to the termination hearing. See J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d at 781 (preservation of error requires parent demand services prior to the termination hearing).
The district court decision is accordingly affirmed in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.