Opinion
No. 5-377 / 05-0521
Filed May 25, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, District Associate Judge.
N.M. appeals from the district court's ruling terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John P. Heithoff, Council Bluffs, for mother-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Dawn M. Eimers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Phil R. Caniglia, Council Bluffs, for the father.
Marti D. Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for the children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
The district court terminated a mother's parental rights to her two children, D.M., born in 2000, and P.M., born in 2002. The court relied on Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (2005) (requiring proof in pertinent part that circumstances triggering removal continue to exist despite receipt of services), (f) as to D.M., (h) as to P.M. (both requiring proof in pertinent part that children cannot be returned to parent's custody), and (i) (requiring proof in pertinent part of neglect constituting imminent danger and offer or receipt of services would not correct conditions). Each of these termination grounds incorporates a requirement that the Department of Human Services make reasonable efforts toward reunification. See In re C.B., 611 N.W. 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (finding the predecessor provisions to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (h) "implicate[d] the reasonable effort requirement").
On appeal, the mother contends the Department of Human Services did not satisfy this reasonable efforts requirement. While conceding the Department offered some reunification services, she maintains she did not receive services or treatment for domestic abuse or the father's drug abuse.
Our courts have stressed the importance of objecting to services "early in the process so appropriate changes can be made." In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493-94; see also In re M.B., 595 N.W.2d 815, 818 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). On our de novo review, it is readily apparent that the mother did not do so.
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance due to unsanitary conditions in the home; food, animal feces, cigarette butts, and other garbage were found strewn about the rooms. Following an initial adjudication of D.M. in 2002 and a later adjudication of both children in 2003, the Department offered the mother a host of services to improve the home environment. The Department also offered the mother assistance in securing employment and new housing.
Neither domestic abuse nor drug abuse was a factor precipitating removal of the children and, for years, neither was raised as an issue that needed to be addressed. Indeed, a Department social worker testified that the mother "minimized" the question of domestic violence, telling her "she was not fearful, she and [the father] were a couple, it was blown out of proportion."
It was not until November 2004 that the mother indicated she would like to leave the marriage because she was fearful of the father. At this point, the social worker gave her several options, including the names of domestic violence facilities in the area. The mother did not pursue these options. At the termination hearing, she explained that the facilities had curfews of eight o'clock in the evening, and she worked nights. There is no indication she raised this impediment with her caseworker or otherwise sought assistance to address the domestic abuse in her home. As the district court stated,
[the mother] repeatedly denied to social workers, attorneys and the juvenile court that she was the victim of domestic abuse by [the father]. When asked by her attorney in August 2003 whether she and [the father] needed marital counseling, she responded, "not really, but if the Court orders it, then it's done, we have to." She told her social worker after [the father] was arrested on an old domestic abuse charge that she felt safe. . . . She failed to request such services during this CINA case.
Similarly, the mother admitted she did not raise her husband's drug use until the termination hearing. Again, the district court found "she failed to request services to assist with substance abuse during the CINA case."
The mother now contends the Department, with its expertise, should have gleaned these additional concerns and affirmatively taken steps to address them. Our law does not require this level of prescience. "While the State has the obligation to provide reasonable reunification services, the mother had (the obligation to demand other, different or additional services prior to the termination hearing." In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
We agree with the district court that the Department made reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification of the mother with her two children. We affirm the termination of her parental rights to these children.