Opinion
No. 2-412 / 02-0499.
Filed May 15, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, ROBERT E. SOSALLA, District Associate Judge.
Parents appeal the order terminating their parental rights to their daughter. AFFIRMED.
David Thinnes of Thinnes Liesveld, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-father.
Lucy Harrington, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Denver D. Dillard, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Judith Amsler, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MAHAN and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Brenda M. and Richard B. appeal the order terminating their parental rights to their daughter, Mary Jane. We affirm.
Mary Jane was born to Brenda and Richard on October 26, 2000. Mary Jane was born with a blood clot in her kidney, which required a daily injection of a blood thinner. Neither Brenda nor Richard learned how to give this injection. After an in-home visit revealed Brenda and Richard's home to be in a severely unsanitary and unsafe condition, Mary Jane was removed from her parents' custody pursuant to an emergency removal order on January 24, 2001, and she was placed in foster care. On March 19, 2001, the juvenile court adjudicated Mary Jane in need of assistance. On August 3, 2001, the State filed a petition to terminate Brenda and Richard's parental rights to Mary Jane, and on March 7, 2002, the court terminated their parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f), (g), and (k) (2001). Brenda and Richard both appeal this order.
Now codified at Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g), (h), and (l) (Supp. 2001).
We review this matter de novo. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
Both Brenda and Richard contend reasonable efforts were not provided, under either Iowa law or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213 (1993). Richard first raised the applicability of the ADA in his answer to the petition for termination, while Brenda only raised it by moving to join Richard's answer at trial. The ADA prohibits a public entity from discriminating against a disabled person by excluding him or her from participation or by denying the benefits of public services, programs, or activities. Id. § 12132. The ADA requires the public entity to make "reasonable accommodation" to allow the disabled person to receive the services or to participate in the public entity's programs. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) (1994). Brenda and Richard apparently claim the State did not reasonably accommodate their low level intellectual functioning.
We recognize there is a requirement that reasonable services be offered to preserve the family unit. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). However, while the State bears the obligation to offer reasonable services, the parents have the responsibility to challenge or object to the services provided at the removal or review hearing. Id. There is no evidence either Brenda or Richard, at any time prior to Richard's answer to the termination petition, challenged the fact that reasonable efforts had not been utilized. Nor did either request any specific services to allow the family to continue towards reunification. Parents have a responsibility to demand services prior to the termination hearing. Id.; In re C.D., 508 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). Challenges to the plan for reunification should come when the plan is entered. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d at 807. It is too late to challenge the adequacy of services at the termination hearing. See id.
We also recognize a parent suffering from mental illness suffers a disability and may need special accommodations. Id. This issue too, however, should be raised at the removal or review hearing. Id. It is too late to challenge the service plan at the termination hearing. In re C.D., 508 N.W.2d at 101. The issue of adequate services under either Iowa law or the ADA, therefore, has not been preserved for appellate review. See In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). We affirm on this issue.
Even assuming this issue was preserved, we would still conclude reasonable efforts were made to reunify the family and that Richard and Brenda were reasonably accommodated. The numerous services provided to the family include foster care, Linn County Home Health, which provides supervised visits and parenting skills training, social work case management from the Department of Human Services, the Young Parents Network, which also provides parent skills training, and the Area Substance Abuse Counsel, for substance abuse treatment. In addition, the record shows the parenting skills trainers were aware of Brenda and Richard's cognitive limitations and accommodated them by employing a hands-on approach to teaching parenting skills when possible, rather than simply using verbal or written training methods. The Young Parents Network employed a hands-on approach as well.
Further, Richard contends the new Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure violate his right to due process by requiring him to file an appeal with legal and factual arguments without the benefit of a trial transcript. Richard does not cite to any legal authority and makes no argument in support of this proposition. Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.151(2)(e) requires the petition to include "supporting statutes, case law, and other legal authority for each issue raised, including authority contrary to appellant's case." Having failed to do so, we conclude Richard has waived this issue. A failure to adhere to the rules of appellate procedure can, and has in the past, led to summary disposition of an appeal. See Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 239 (Iowa 1974) (dismissing appeal based on party's failure to cite any authority).
Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5, 6.6, 6.10, 6.151, 6.152, 6.163, 6.154.
AFFIRMED.