Opinion
No. 3-106 / 03-0019.
Filed February 28, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary J. Sokolovske, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three children. AFFIRMED.
Dewey Sloan, Jr., Le Mars, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Marleen Loftus, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Stephanie Forker Parry of Forker Parry, Sioux City, for mother.
Lesley Rynell of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children. Brandon M. is the father and Angelina is the mother of T.M., born July 2, 1999, B.M., born September 2, 2000, and J.M., born December 3, 2001. The siblings have an older brother, T.D., who resides with his grandmother. T.D. is not involved in this termination proceeding.
This family first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services in December 2000 when the mother of the children reported the father had abandoned them. T.M. and B.M. were removed from Angelina's care in March 2001 after she was arrested for several traffic offenses. She and the children were observed to be living a nomadic lifestyle. Brandon was sent to prison in the State of South Dakota about a month after Angelina's arrest. The father has an extensive criminal history. T.M. and B.M. were adjudicated to be in need of assistance, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2 (2001) on May 14, 2001, and placed in foster care.
On August 14, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the mother's and father's parental rights to the children. The termination hearing was held in October of 2002. At the time of the hearing, Brandon was incarcerated. He had not had contact with T.M. and B.M. since December 2000. He has never had contact with J.M. The record reveals the father was released from prison in the early part of 2002 and placed in a halfway house. A psychosocial evaluation he completed in April 2002 identified numerous concerns. Brandon violated the terms of his parole and was returned to the South Dakota prison system. His release date could be as late as September 2003. The children do not have an attachment to their father. He is a virtual stranger to them. The children's mother did not attend the termination hearing. She consented to termination of her parental rights to all three children prior to the termination hearing. Later, she revoked her consent to termination of her parental rights to J.M.
Following a trial, the juvenile court terminated Brandon's parental rights to all three children pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (h) (Supp. 2001). The mother's parental rights to B.M. and T.M. were also terminated. The father has appealed.
We review termination of parental rights orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
On our de novo review of the record, we conclude the State has proven all of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Brandon has not maintained meaningful contact with his children and the children do not share a bond with their father. Brandon remains in prison in South Dakota. Even if he were not in prison, the record reveals he has not demonstrated the stability necessary to parent his children. There is no parental home to which the children can be returned.
Brandon does not contend that the State failed to prove the grounds for termination of his parental rights. Instead, Brandon contends the State did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification. A challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised at the removal or review hearing when services are offered. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The father does not indicate how he preserved error on this issue. The record reveals he completed a psychosocial evaluation, but did not follow its recommendations. He did not follow the terms of his parole and was returned to prison. During his testimony by phone at the termination hearing, he did not mention any services that should have been provided to him. When the parent alleging inadequate services fails to demand services other than those provided, the issue of whether services were adequate is not preserved for appellate review. In the Interest of S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). We find Brandon has failed to preserve error on this issue.
Clear and convincing evidence supports termination of the father's parental rights. We agree with the juvenile court's conclusion that termination of Brandon's parental rights is in the children's best interests. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.