From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Interest of I.D.L

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 28, 2003
662 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

No. 3-107 / 03-0020.

Filed February 28, 2003.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Sylvia A. Lewis, District Associate Judge.

A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Jeffrey Fields, Iowa City, attorney for appellant Mother.

Sally Weyer, Bergan Weyer, Iowa City, attorney for appellant Father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Deborah Minot, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.

Eric Nelson, Nelson law office, Coralville, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Sackett, C. J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.


A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their youngest child. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Leo and Rachel together had four children. The youngest, Isabellea (Izzy), born in 1997, is the subject of this appeal.

Leo and Rachel have been involved with the Department of Human Services since 1994 based on allegations of physical abuse, lack of supervision, and denial of critical care.

In 2001, Izzy was placed in therapeutic foster care to address severe behavioral problems. Leo and Rachel, who had since separated, separately exercised visitation with her for a period of time. Both parents' visitation was ultimately suspended.

Leo applied to have visitation reinstated. Following a hearing at which Izzy's therapist and Leo testified, the district associate court denied the application.

In mid-2002, the State petitioned to terminate the parents' rights to Izzy. The court considered exhibits and testimony from Department representatives, service providers, friends, and relatives, then terminated the parents' rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (Supp. 2001) (child cannot be returned to home). Both parents have appealed.

II. Mother.

Rachel contends there is insufficient evidence to establish that Izzy cannot be returned to her home. On our de novo review, we disagree.

Rachel showed signs of mental illness beginning in her adolescent years. Additionally, she had an untreated substance abuse problem and an interest in pornography. Although she was the primary caretaker for several years after the children were born, she disappeared for days at a time, left the children unsupervised, and exposed them to physical and emotional harm.

After separating from Leo and taking Izzy with her, she voluntarily relinquished care of the child to her sister-in-law. The Department later learned that this relative was ill-equipped to deal with Izzy's burgeoning behavioral problems.

A month before the termination hearing, Rachel was charged with assault and spent several days in jail. On her release, she moved to Oskaloosa. She did not attend the termination hearing.

It is clear from the record that Izzy could not be returned to Rachel's care. A family therapist summarized Rachel's prospects best. She opined Rachel would need "a lot of treatment" before she could be involved in the children's lives on an unsupervised basis, and she suggested that this "could take a very long time."

III. Father.

Leo contends 1) the State failed to prove Izzy could not be returned to the home, 2) and the Department did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification. We disagree on both counts.

A. Return to Home. When Leo and Rachel separated, Leo assumed the care of the three oldest children, all of whom had special needs. A family therapist who worked with Leo opined "it would be extremely difficult" for Leo to handle another child. She reasoned, "with the level of needs that the other children have, if you put a fourth person in that, and her needs seem to be higher than the other three, I think it would throw the home in even a higher state of chaos."

Additionally, Izzy's foster parent, who is also a clinical psychologist, testified that when Izzy visited her father, she experienced "severe regression," which was "far beyond" anything she would have expected in such a situation. She noted that, despite a lengthy period of individual therapy, special needs education, and therapeutic foster care, Izzy was "still very fragile." She opined that Izzy would need "another large chunk of time in a very structured, very calm environment where there's not a lot of distress."

Finally, Izzy's therapist testified at the visitation hearing that she was "concerned for this child's well-being and the level of distress that she seems to show around visits." She opined that contact with the parents would "interfere with appropriate resolution of trauma and ability to resolve and engage in academic and family and social kinds of activities."

This and other evidence supports the court's conclusion that:

It would neither be in the interest of Isabellea to return to the home of Leo and the three other siblings, nor would it be in the interest of the three children to have her added to the tenuous family constellation that Leo is attempting to manage.
B. Reasonable Efforts. The Department is required to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492-93 (Iowa 2000). Leo claims that, by suspending visitation, the Department failed in its mandate. We disagree. The Department provided a variety of services to Leo and the family over a period of eight years. Even after Izzy was placed in therapeutic foster care, the Department's goal remained reunification. Visitation was suspended only after the Department was notified by Izzy's clinically-trained foster parent of post-visitation problems.

These problems were later confirmed by Izzy's therapist. She pointed out that, even after visitation was suspended, Izzy appeared traumatized by past events that she attributed to her father.

Finally, the Department's caseworker stated that no services requested by Leo other than reinstatement of visitation were ever denied. Indeed, services were ongoing at the time of the termination hearing.

IV. Disposition

We affirm the termination of Leo and Rachel's parental rights to Izzy.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In the Interest of I.D.L

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 28, 2003
662 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

In the Interest of I.D.L

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF I.D.L., Minor Child, L.L., Father, Appellant, R.L.…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Feb 28, 2003

Citations

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