Opinion
No. 2-541 / 02-0758.
Filed July 3, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, DANIEL L. BLOCK, Judge.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Richard Betterton of Snow, Knock, Sevcik, Betterton Hinze, Cedar Falls, for appellant-father.
David Roth of Gallagher, Langlas Gallagher, P.C., Waterloo, for mother.
Tim Baldwin, Waterloo, guardian ad litem.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katherine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven Halbach, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and ZIMMER, JJ.
James, the father of Ion, born in August of 2000, appeals from the May 1, 2002 order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights to the child. James contends (1) reasonable efforts were not made to preserve his family, (2) the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Ion could not be returned to his father's care; 3) the adoption specialist who testified, as well as the juvenile court, failed to consider the bond that Ion had with his brother. We affirm.
James was removed from his parents' care about three weeks after his birth. He had been taken in for a "well baby" check. Aside from apparently being fussy, no other problems were noted. Later in the day Ion's mother sought medical advice because Ion had made a "cracking" sound. The child was taken to a medical clinic where it was determined that four of his ribs were fractured. It appeared that Ion had not been out of his parents' care between the first medical appointment and the medical examination that revealed the broken ribs. Neither parent was able to explain the injury, nor have they been able to explain how the injuries happened during the course of these proceedings. Ion was hospitalized, and upon his release he was placed in foster care, where he has remained. Following Ion's placement in foster care, James and Ion's mother were offered services and exercised supervised visits with Ion three times a week.
On November 2, 2001 the State sought termination of Ion's parents' rights. On February 20 and 21, 2002 the matter came on for hearing. On May 1, 2002 the juvenile court filed its decision terminating the parental rights of both of Ion's parents. The parental rights of James were terminated under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c), (g), and (h) (2001).
The applicable code sections are now 232.116(1)(d), (h), and (i) (Supp. 2001).
We review de novo. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990). However, we give weight to the juvenile court's findings of fact, especially the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Where there is conflicting evidence on some issues, we give consideration to the juvenile court on issues of credibility. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
The State has the burden of proving the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Id. A parent has the right to due process and a fair trial when the State seeks to terminate parental rights. Id.; see also Alsager v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 406 F. Supp. 10, 22 (S.D.Iowa 1975). A parent's right to have custody of his or her child should be terminated only with the utilization of the required constitutional safeguards. Id.; see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 1045 (1923); In re T.R., 460 N.W.2d 873, 875 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990). The parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected. Id., citing Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 554, 54 L.Ed.2d 511, 519 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L.Ed.2d 15, 35 (1972).
The issue of whether or not to legally sever the biological ties between parent and child is an issue of grave importance with serious repercussions to the child as well as the biological parents. H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d at 677. The goal of a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding is to improve parenting skills and maintain the parent-child relationship. Id. An underlying issue in a termination action is whether the parent is beyond help. Id. A parent does not have an unlimited amount of time in which to correct his or her deficiencies. See id.; see also In re D.J.R., 454 N.W.2d 838, 845 (Iowa 1990).
We first address James's claim that reasonable efforts were not made to reunite his family. There is a requirement that reasonable services be offered to preserve the family unit. H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d at 679. The State had the obligation to make reasonable efforts, but it is the parent's responsibility to demand services if they are not offered prior to the termination hearing. Id.;In re C.D., 508 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993).
James does not contend services were not offered to the family. We find the record shows the family was offered a number of services, some of which the family utilized, and some they did not. James contends, however, that reunification was not accomplished because demands were continually made on him and the child's mother to admit they had inflicted abuse on Ion, causing the child's broken ribs. There is no showing that James made an objection when this allegedly occurred, or that during the pendency of the proceedings the parents raised this issue with the juvenile court and asked that other programs be provided to them. We affirm on this issue.
James next contends the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Ion could not be returned to his care. James points to the fact that at the time of Ion's removal from his care, his thirteen-month-old brother, Eric, was living with James and Ion's mother. In November of 2001, it was reported that James and Ion's mother provided alcohol to minors, who apparently drank around Eric, and that there was a fight among the minors in the child's room. There also were suggestions that the couple allowed family members who may have engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior to be in the child's company. There apparently was a founded child abuse report. There is no evidence that Eric has been harmed.
There is validity to James's argument that the fact that Eric has been cared for by his parents and remains in their care negates the State's claim that there is clear and convincing evidence Ion cannot be retuned to them. There is evidence that Eric's minimum basic needs have been met. However, there was evidence at the time of the termination hearing that James and the children's mother indicated they were going to live separately. The record reflects that Eric will live with his mother. She has not appealed, so at this point we are dealing only with the issue of whether there is clear and convincing evidence Ion cannot be returned to James's care. In addressing this issue we note there is evidence indicating James was sometimes the stronger parent of the two. Additionally, we are impressed with the efforts James has made to exercise visitation with Ion. Yet James has no structure in his life. There is nothing in the record that shows he has any kind of a plan for providing adequate housing and support for Ion. James has failed to utilize a number of recommended services. He has not been able to remain employed. The attorney and guardian ad litem for the child recommended termination of his rights, as did the CASA worker. Giving the required deference to the decision of the juvenile court, we find the State has met its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Ion cannot be returned to his father's care. See In re D.W., 385 N.W.2d 570, 579 (Iowa 1986). We affirm on this issue.
James' next challenge is that the adoption specialist who testified, as well as the juvenile court, failed to consider the bond that James had with his brother. At the time Ion was removed from his parents' care, he was three weeks old. His brother was just over thirteen months old. Ion's brother participated with his parents in ordered visitation during the pendency of the proceedings, and there is evidence that the children interact well with each other. We recognize, as James argues, and the State does not deny, that there is a preference in the law for keeping siblings together, and the termination order severs the sibling relationship as well as the parental relationship. That preference is not strong enough to outweigh the evidence favoring termination in this case. We affirm on this issue.
We deny the petition for further briefing, finding the record before us sufficient to address the issues raised. We affirm the termination of James's parental rights to Ion.
AFFIRMED.