Opinion
No. 3-104 / 02-1967.
Filed March 12, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, EDWARD H. JACOBSON, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John Moeller, O'Brien, Galvin Moeller, Sioux City, attorney for appellant Mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Dewey Sloan, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Marchelle Denker, Sioux City Juvenile Office, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C. J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She contends there is insufficient evidence to support the grounds for termination cited by the district court. Finding sufficient evidence to support one of the grounds, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Gina is the mother of Ean, born in 1993. In March 2002, the Department of Human Services was asked to investigate a complaint that both Gina and her son were exhibiting signs of psychosis. Following the investigation, the Department issued a founded child abuse report against Gina for denial of critical care and failure to provide proper supervision. The assessment was based on Gina's refusal to obtain mental health care for her son and her refusal to keep Ean in school. Ean was removed from the home and adjudicated a child in need of assistance.
Approximately four months after the removal, the State filed a petition to terminate Gina's parental rights. Following a hearing, the district court terminated Gina's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) (abandonment), (d) (neglect and circumstances continue despite receipt of services), and (e) (absence of significant and meaningful contact) (Supp. 2001). This appeal followed.
II. Merits
Where a district court cites multiple grounds for termination, we may affirm if we find sufficient evidence to support any one of the grounds. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). We will focus on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d).
That provision authorizes termination where:
(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents . . . and
(2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
Gina argues there is insufficient evidence to establish the second element. The record reveals the Department offered Gina some reunification services.
A supervised visit was scheduled immediately following the removal. The Department then retained a service provider to facilitate additional weekday visitation. After four visits, one of which the provider had to shorten for personal reasons, the Department curtailed further visitation, citing Gina's attempt to leave with the child. At the time, Gina did not have a driver's license and was in the presence of two workers, one of whom was restraining her.
The Department also scheduled a mental health examination with a local provider who charged a significant up-front fee. Gina advised the Department she had already made arrangements to be evaluated by another provider at no cost. She went to that facility for an initial evaluation. A psychiatrist noted she was "anxious/sad" regarding the removal of her son and reported other statements made by Gina, but made no recommendations or formal diagnosis. This provider closed Gina's file after she missed two follow-up appointments due to lack of transportation.
After the State petitioned to terminate parental rights, the Department scheduled a psychosocial evaluation. Gina declined to provide a social history and left. The social worker obtained the history from Gina's mother, then concluded Gina was "[i]incapacitated due to mental illness."
We have reservations concerning the limited scope of the Department's reunification efforts. See In re C.B, 611 N.W.2d 489, 492-93 (Iowa 2000) (requiring the State to show reasonable efforts as part of its ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent). Despite these reservations, we note that Gina failed to request follow-up services such as additional visitation, the payment of transportation expenses to subsequent mental health visits, and clarification of the nature of her obligations during the psychosocial examination. Id. at 493-94. In the absence of such requests, we conclude the offered services were sufficient to satisfy the Department's reasonable efforts mandate.
The next question is whether the circumstances that led to the adjudication continued to exist despite the offer and receipt of services. In the six months from the child's removal to the termination hearing, Gina did not acknowledge the existence of a mental illness despite incidents of paranoid and irrational behavior. She did not follow through with treatment. She did not convince the Department she would keep Ean in school. Finally, she did not cooperate with the Department's efforts to gain a complete understanding of the family dynamic. We conclude the State satisfied its burden of proving that the
circumstances leading to the adjudication continued to exist. We affirm the district court's ruling.
AFFIRMED.
I dissent. There is not clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court's decisions terminating Gina's parental rights to ten-year-old Ean. I would reverse and remand to implement further services to assure a speedy reunification of this family.
Ean, an only child, has lived with his mother, Gina, since his birth. His father was not aware of his existence until several years after he was born, and he has no interest in Ean. Gina has lived at the poverty level. Yet the home where she lived with Ean was clean, though sparsely furnished. Gina has seen that Ean has regular medical care, and he is basically healthy. There is no claim he has been physically or sexually abused.
While in Gina's care, Ean had several absences from school. The record does not afford a clear picture of the exact nature of this problem.
Human Services first became involved in this family's life after Gina took Ean to his medical doctor indicating he had certain physical ailments, and the doctor offered psychiatric or psychological evaluations and treatment for Ean and Gina. Gina refused the offer and left the office with Ean, contending she was going to seek advice from another doctor. Human Services was called. Ean was ultimately removed from Gina's care. Gina and Ean had four supervised visits, and then the visits were cut off. Within four months the petition, which led to the termination of Ean's parental rights, was filed.
The juvenile court terminated on three grounds. Gina challenges all the grounds. The majority has affirmed on one. They have concluded that there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) because services were offered for the circumstances which led to Ean's being found a child in need of assistance, and the circumstances continued to exist despite the fact that services were offered. The majority notes it has "reservations concerning the limited scope of the department's reunification efforts." I strongly agree with this statement of the majority. I disagree that the limited services offered were sufficient to assist Gina in correcting the problem that led to Ean's removal. I believe additional requests by Gina should have been honored.
The complaint about Gina is that she has mental health issues, though as she points out in her petition on appeal, she has not been diagnosed with mental illness. I recognize that she has exhibited erratic behaviors, is an overly protective mother and is paranoid about the intentions of others. Unfortunately, the efforts that were made fueled her paranoia. She was handcuffed as Ean was removed from her care. The only four visits she had with Ean were supervised. Gina understandably was upset about her limited access to Ean. Ean was equally upset, if not more so. Gina reacted improperly and tried to take Ean with her following a visit.
Besides the restricted visitation, Gina was offered a mental health evaluation and a psychosocial evaluation. She made efforts to comply but was limited in part by a lack of transportation and her lack of trust in the service providers.
These services were hardly sufficient. At the termination hearing Gina's mother asked to be involved in the case. She had adopted other grandchildren and was available to assist with Ean's care. The grandmother's request was denied. Her intervention would be helpful in assisting Gina with her problems.
The juvenile court also terminated on two other grounds: abandonment and absence of significant and meaningful contact. The State did not introduce clear and convincing evidence to support these grounds. Ean was removed from Gina's care, despite her objection. Gina exercised all visits given her. She wanted longer and more extensive visits with Ean. Her visitations were cut off.
Federal guidelines have put pressures on agencies and the courts to move to termination at a faster pace so that children do not languish in foster care. There are cases where speed in reaching termination is justified. This case is not one of them. There is an extremely close relationship between Ean and his mother. Ean, who is ten years old, cares about his mother and wants to be with her. While one could hope if Gina's parental rights are terminated Ean would go to a great adoptive home, there is no promise this will happen. Even if Ean does go to such a home, he will carry with him concerns for his mother and unresolved issues regarding his relationship with her.
Furthermore, although Gina has problems, refusing to care for her son has never been one of them. She is an overprotective mother. She is paranoid. By her own admission, she hears voices. She does not accept suggestions easily. If there is a medical opinion that Gina has a mental condition that makes her a danger to herself or others, she should be committed for mental care and be given ample opportunity to get well. The facts that she may not conform to all of society's norms, is paranoid and overprotective do not support terminating her parental rights at this time. The bond between her and Ean is so strong that additional efforts to reunite them should be employed with the help of Gina's mother, who should be allowed to intervene.