Opinion
No. 4-818 / 04-1576
Filed December 8, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, Donald J. Bormann, District Associate Judge.
M.R. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three minor children. AFFIRMED.
Jack Bjornstad of Bjornstad Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas Hansen, County Attorney, and Stephanie Brown, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
John Kauer, Estherville, for mother.
Thomas Magee, Emmetsburg, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Mickey and Toinette are the parents of Ryan, born in 1992; Jeremy, born in 1993; and Heath, born in 1995. The Department of Human Services first became involved with the family in September 2002 following allegations that Mickey had physically abused Toinette and the children. There were also allegations that the children were not adequately supervised.
An adjudicatory order was entered on November 7, 2002, which found the children were in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(b) (Supp. 2001) (parent is imminently likely to abuse or neglect child), (c) (child is likely to suffer harm due to mental injury or failure to supervise), and (n) (parent's mental condition results in child not receiving adequate care). Mickey was ordered to have a psychological evaluation and participate in a Domestic Abuse Intervention Program. He was to have no contact with the children except supervised visitation. In the dispositional order, entered on March 12, 2003, the juvenile court ordered the children placed in foster care, finding continued placement with Toinette was contrary to the welfare of the children.
Mickey obtained a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and obsessive-compulsive personality traits. He contacted the domestic abuse program, but did not participate in classes. Mickey was sporadic in attending visitation. The children stated they were afraid of their father, and they displayed behavioral problems after visits. The children attended individual therapy. Mickey did not have any visitation after January 2004.
In May 2004 the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Mickey and Toinette. The juvenile court terminated Mickey's parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(d) (2003) (child CINA for abuse, circumstances continue despite the receipt of services), (e) (parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact), and (i) (child is in imminent danger and services would not correct conditions). Toinette's rights were also terminated. The court expressed doubts about whether Mickey had physically abused the children, but found the children could not be returned to his care "because the children appear to be convinced and have developed a fear of having to live with their father or even having unsupervised visits with him." The court noted Mickey had made little effort to have the children returned to his care. Mickey appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Mickey contends the State did not present sufficient evidence to warrant termination of his parental rights. He points out that the juvenile court was not convinced Mickey had physically abused the children. He asserts the children could safely be returned to his care.
On our de novo review, we find the evidence of physical abuse to be more compelling than did the juvenile court. Before entering a founded report of physical abuse against Mickey, an investigator separately questioned each of the children. The children gave similar reports of abuse by Mickey, such as being hit or slapped, having their hair pulled, or being shoved against a wall. The statements of each child corroborated the statements of the other children. Mickey appealed the founded report, but it was affirmed by the Department of Human Services. We also note that the children continued to be afraid of Mickey long after they were removed from his care. The children addressed the effects of their abuse through individual therapy. Mickey, on the other hand, has not participated in any services relating to domestic abuse. We conclude the children could not be safely returned to Mickey's care, and that Mickey's parental rights were properly terminated.
IV. Best Interests
Mickey claims it is not in the children's best interests to terminate his parental rights. The children were afraid of Mickey and felt uncomfortable continuing with even supervised visitation with their father. We conclude termination of Mickey's parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.