Opinion
No. 2-1026 / 02-1879
Filed January 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her two children. AFFIRMED.
Barbara Durden Romar, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ray Blase and Jennifer Galloway, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellant-State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Jason Hauser of the Juvenile Public Defender's Office, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Tara B. is the mother of Makayla B., born October 17, 1996, and Nolan S., born May 25, 2000. The family first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services in 1998 when Makayla suffered a broken arm after spending an evening with Tara's paramour, Steve Schroeder. On October 23, 2000, the children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) and (c)(2) (1999), after they were exposed to a chronic pattern of domestic violence and harassment between Tara and Steve. On August 7, 2001, the children were taken from Tara's custody due to concerns with her unstable housing and lack of follow-through with services.
On July 10, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Tara's parental rights to Makayla and Nolan. Following a trial, the juvenile court terminated Tara's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (h) (Supp. 2001). Tara appeals from this order.
Formerly Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c), (e), and (g) (2001).
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
On appeal Tara first contends generally the State failed to establish the necessary statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence. We conclude the court properly terminated Tara's parental rights to Makayla pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f) and to Nolan pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h). Makayla was older than four while Nolan was younger than three, and both had been adjudicated CINA. Both children were removed from Tara's custody on August 7, 2001, thus satisfying the time element of these two provisions. Moreover, on our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that neither Makayla nor Nolan can be returned to Tara's custody. Despite the offer of numerous services, Tara did not take advantage of them, showed little progress that would give any indication she could safely resume care of the children, and expressed little insight into how her behaviors affected the children. Tara frequently placed the children in vulnerable situations and exposed them to the frequent domestic violence between herself and Steve S. We are convinced Makayla and Nolan would suffer further adjudicatory harm if returned to Tara.
Tara also asserts the court erred in denying her application to reopen the record. We decline to address this contention. A review of the record reveals counsel made no offer of proof and did not otherwise inform the court of the particular evidence sought to be offered or the import of that evidence. Likewise, on appeal Tara's petition on appeal fails to cite the specific evidence she wishes to offer or its intended effect. As such, we conclude Tara failed to preserve error on this issue. See Strong v. Rothamel, 523 N.W.2d 597, 599 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).