Opinion
No. 2-508 / 02-0562.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, BRIAN L. MICHAELSON, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
Martha McMinn, Sioux City, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, and Michele Lauters, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Joseph Kertels of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. She contends reasonable efforts toward reunification were not made. We disagree and affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Linda is the mother of Monica, born in 1991. Linda has a history of mental illness, including hallucinations, delusional thinking, and paranoia. She also has a history of substance abuse.
Monica was removed from Linda's care after Linda appeared at a therapy session manifesting serious symptoms of mental illness. Monica remained in foster care throughout these proceedings.
The State petitioned to terminate Linda's parental rights. The juvenile court granted the petition pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c) (physical or sexual abuse or neglect and circumstances continue to exist despite receipt of services), (h) (child in imminent danger and services would not correct the conditions), and (j) (parent has chronic mental illness and child cannot be returned within a reasonable time). Iowa Code § 232.116 (2001). This appeal followed.
Iowa Code Section 232.116(1) was restructured effective April 24, 2001. Iowa Code § 232.116(1) subsections (c), (h) and (i) are now codified at subsections (d), (i) and (k), respectively.
II. Reasonable Efforts
Linda contends the Department failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.102(7) and (10)(a); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492-93 (Iowa 2000). On our de novo review, we disagree.
The State contends Linda failed to preserve error on this issue. We disagree. First, we believe a parent may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the reasonable efforts element of the State's case, whether or not the issue was raised before the juvenile court. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492-93 (Iowa 2000). Second, to the extent Linda seeks alternative services to those provided by a service provider known as Blue Stem, she preserved error by asking the juvenile court to assign a different provider and by obtaining a ruling denying the request. Cf. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999) (noting parent did not request additional services and, therefore, did not preserve the issue for review).
The Department initiated family centered services, sought inpatient psychiatric care for Linda, enrolled her in a partial hospitalization program, obtained other mental health referrals, and attempted to obtain psychosocial evaluations. The Department also provided supervised in-person and supervised telephone visitation for a short period of time.
Initially, the Department and service providers reported that Linda complied with her psychiatrist's recommendations, participated in supervised visits and expressed an intention to "do what it takes" to achieve reunification with her daughter. However, Linda's behavior soon began to deteriorate. Blue Stem Family Services, a provider that contracted with the Department to furnish therapy and skill development services, reported that Linda made twenty to thirty harassing phone calls to members of the staff. One of the employees characterized Linda's behavior as "bizarre, irrational, volatile, threatening, and harassing." A Department caseworker also reported she received similar phone calls, letters, and an item in the mail, after which she asked Linda to funnel all communications with the Department through her attorney. In light of these behaviors, both the Department and Blue Stem essentially curtailed the direct services they were providing.
We do not deem this a violation of the Department's reasonable efforts mandate. As the guardian ad litem opined, the Department "can not be blamed" for the cessation of direct services, given Linda's "uncooperative and threatening" behavior.
We also are not persuaded by Linda's contention that the Department should have assigned her a different service provider when it became apparent she was not getting along with Blue Stem employees. The Department attempted to secure a variety of services, including but not limited to those provided by Blue Stem. Linda, however, ultimately did not cooperate with any of these services. She missed appointments with her treating psychiatrist, the local mental health center, and the partial hospitalization program. Indeed, despite the availability of these services from the inception of these proceedings, a social worker who saw Linda six months after Monica's removal reported that she had "poor insight into her mental illness" and had a "lifelong history of noncompliance with treatment." In short, Linda, not the Department, failed to address her mental illness and, based on this record, the retention of another service provider would not have made a difference. As the guardian ad litem concluded, "Linda has remained too long in a condition rendering her unsuitable for reunification efforts."
We conclude the Department satisfied its reasonable efforts mandate and we affirm the termination order.
AFFIRMED.
VOGEL, J., concurs; MILLER, J., concurs specially.
I concur in the result.