From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Interest of A.M.B

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 12, 2003
662 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

No. 3-077 / 02-1769

Filed February 12, 2003

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Lucy J. Gamon, District Associate Judge.

A mother and a father each appeal an order terminating their parental rights to two children. AFFIRMED.

Patricia Lipski, Washington, for appellant father.

Eric Tindal, Williamsburg, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Barbara Edmondson, County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Kathryn Salazar, Washington, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.


The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Jeanny and Donald to Adreanna and Dakota pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(c) (2001) (child (or child who is a member of the same family) adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) for physical abuse by a parent, circumstances continue to exist despite offer or receipt of services). It ordered guardianship and custody of the children transferred to the Department of Human Services (DHS). Both parents appeal.

This provision has been renumbered as section 232.116(1)(d) in the 2001 Code Supplement and the 2003 Code.

Our scope and standards of review are set forth in In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) and need not be repeated here.

Each parent claims the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence it had made reasonable efforts toward reunifying the parent with the children. Reasonable services must be offered to preserve the family unit. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The reasonable efforts requirement is not a strict substantive requirement for termination of parental rights, but rather the scope of the efforts by the DHS to reunify parent and child after removal impacts the burden of proving termination elements which require reunification efforts. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493. The State must show reasonable efforts as part of its proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent. Id.

Jeanny asserts individual counseling was a critical component to her ability to resolve problems with instability in her home and personal life. She claims that despite her requests to the DHS she was not provided individual counseling, and the State thus failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.

The evidence shows, however, she did in fact have mental health counseling from about March 2002 until some time in May 2002. Then in mid-2002 after funding questions arose, the DHS assisted her in making arrangements for further individual counseling through Lutheran Social Services (LSS), covered by a grant through county funding. However after keeping one appointment she missed the next, did not reschedule, and did not further participate despite efforts by LSS staff to reach her and get her to do so. The State also provided a myriad of other services to her, including supervised visitation, family centered services, foster family care for the children, mental health evaluation and treatment, transportation assistance, Title 19 assistance, and Family Investment Program/food stamps. We find, as the juvenile court did, the State made reasonable efforts to reunify Jeanny with the children.

Donald correctly notes that the major issues or concerns regarding him were housing, employment, anger management, and alcohol abuse. He asserts services to assist in acquiring housing were offered only to Jeanny and not to him, he has in fact applied for and acquired Section 8 housing, and if the DHS had assisted him in obtaining housing he would have found housing much sooner.

Donald has lived in his mother's home since he and Jeanny separated. (Their marriage was later dissolved in February 2002). Other adult siblings of Donald live in the home as well. Although the children at one time had visitations with Donald in that home, the visits had to be changed to a different location because of the condition of the home. The children had acquired head lice from that home on three different occasions. The family therapist who supervised visits in the home also had lice as a result of being there.

Donald knew since at least April 2002 that he had to acquire adequate housing, and yet did nothing to apply for housing assistance or otherwise acquire adequate housing until August 2002. Even then it was his attorney, not him, who sent information necessary for housing assistance to the organization identified as a possible source of financial assistance. Donald did ask DHS to provide a letter to assist him in his housing application. This request, in August, was his first and only request to DHS for assistance in acquiring housing. Because of the social worker's personal moves and vacations there was some delay by DHS in responding to his request. The social worker did, however, provide the necessary information to the agency that could provide assistance. Donald's application for assistance was approved, contingent however upon him having custody of the children.

Donald continues to have marginal, part-time employment. Despite completing an anger management class he engaged in incidents involving harassment or threats toward Jeanny in July 2002 and again in late September 2002. After the July incident he agreed to attend a batterer's education program, but engaged in the September incident during that program, missed two classes, did not participate well, and was in danger of being terminated from the program.

Donald has a serious alcohol abuse problem. He completed a substance abuse evaluation and an outpatient treatment program. He did not complete a recommended extended outpatient program. He continued to drink at times, acknowledging he drank six to nine beers on occasions when he drank. He appears to view such drinking as minimal and insignificant.

The State has provided or offered Donald numerous services to deal with his problems with housing, employment, anger management, and substance abuse. The services have included visitation supervision, family centered services, foster family care for the children, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, Title 19 assistance, anger management classes, and a batterer's education program. We find the evidence clearly and convincingly shows the State has made reasonable efforts to reunify Donald with the children and has provided reasonable services in attempting to do so.

Both Jeanny and Donald claim the juvenile court erred by failing to adequately consider the best interests of the children in not granting their requests for a six-month continuation of the CINA case. Jeanny urges the potential loss of a relationship between the children and an older sibling, and an absence of evidence a six-month continuation would harm the children, show termination was not in the children's best interest. Donald argues that family bonds between the two children and their parents show a six-month continuation should have been granted.

The children have an older, six and one-half-year-old sister. The sister has lived with her maternal grandparents since February 2002. Adreanna and Dakota also lived with the maternal grandparents briefly after being removed from their parents' home in February 2002. However, they were shortly thereafter placed together in family foster care as the grandparents were unable to care for both them and their older sister. They had been in foster care and separated from their older sister about seven months at the time of the termination hearing.

In addressing the question of the best interests of the children the juvenile court stated in part:

In this regard, the Court considers that Adreanna and Dakota are two young girls who are developing normally, although Adreanna has some attachment issues, and both girls have some minor behavioral issues. The termination report states:

Adreanna and Dakota are very adoptable. They have been able to maintain in the foster family home. There is a proven history of residing in a family environment. They do have one sibling that is over the age of three and therefore ineligible for termination at this time. Adreanna and Dakota should remain together and have the opportunity for sibling contact with [their older sister]. The current foster parents are not at this time seeking to adopt. . . .

The Court finds it would be in the best interests of these two children to have parental rights terminated and to be adopted.

The parents have asked the Court to consider allowing an additional six months for them to acquire the necessary stability in order to have the children returned to them. The Court finds no reason to grant an additional six months in this case. The parents have made little to no progress in acquiring stability in the over one year that services have been provided. The parents' past behavior is the best predictor of their future behavior. [Citations]. There is simply no reason for believing that the parents' behavior in the next six months will be any different than their behavior over the last year. Some of the issues the parents are struggling with, including intellectual capacity for Jeanny and alcohol abuse and anger management for Donald, are issues they have struggled with for many years.

A parent's time to correct conditions must be reasonably limited. "Patience on behalf of the parent can quickly translate into intolerable hardship for the children." [Citation]. "Children should not be forced to endlessly suffer the parentless limbo of foster care." [Citation]. There is no reason for these children to languish any longer in foster care when it is clear that they are adoptable. All services providers agree that these children are badly in need of stability and permanency.

We conclude, as the juvenile court did, that it is in the children's best interests to have parental rights terminated in order that they may acquire the stability and permanency they need and deserve.

Donald claims the juvenile court abused its discretion in not transferring guardianship and custody of the children to their paternal aunt when it terminated parental rights, as allowed by Iowa Code section 232.117(3)(c) and requested at the termination hearing.

The juvenile court and the DHS were first made aware at the termination hearing that Donald's sister wished to be considered for possible placement and adoption of the children. Donald's sister and her husband have a child with physical limitations resulting from amputations. Another child of the husband also resides in their home. Donald's sister is not employed outside the home. In addressing the request made at the termination hearing the juvenile court stated in part:

The parents have asked that the Court consider [Donald's sister] as a possible relative placement and potential adoptive placement of the two children. This Court simply does not have enough information about [Donald's sister] to make a determination that the children could safely be placed with her at this time. Almost all of the information the Court has about [Donald's sister] has come from her own testimony. There is no independent home study for the Court to assess. The Court cannot clearly determine if [Donald's sister's] home is large enough for two additional children or if her husband's income will be adequate to meet the needs of two additional children. The Court does not know whether [Donald's sister] has a criminal history, any confirmed child abuse reports, or any other issues which might impair her ability to parent these children.

In its ruling the juvenile court encouraged the DHS to consider Donald's sister as a possible adoptive placement for the children, but noted such decisions were, after termination, for the DHS to make.

There had been no investigation of Donald's sister, her family, or her home. The juvenile court simply did not have the information necessary to determine whether she was a possible guardian and custodian for the children. It did not abuse its discretion in placing guardianship and custody of the children with the DHS rather than her.

Finding no merit to the issues raised on appeal, we affirm the juvenile court on each of those issues.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In the Interest of A.M.B

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 12, 2003
662 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

In the Interest of A.M.B

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.B and D.C.B, Minor Children, P.B., Father…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Feb 12, 2003

Citations

662 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)