Opinion
No. 3-075 / 02-1824
Filed February 12, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Gerald Magee, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children. AFFIRMED.
Philip Garland, Garner, forappellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Karen Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
James Wetterling, Garner, guardian ad litem for the minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P. J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h), (i), and (l) (Supp. 2001). He contends the Department of Human Services (DHS) did not make reasonable efforts to reunite him and his children, the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to his care, and termination is not in the best interest of the children. We review his claims de novo. See In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
In its order terminating parental rights, the court cites to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g), (h), and (k) (2001). However, the applicable law in this termination is correctly cited as Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), (i), and (l) (Supp. 2001) due to an amendment to section 232.116 that renumbered the sections but did not substantively alter them.
The district court terminated the father's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (Supp. 2001). The father does not dispute that the first three elements of this section have been met, but instead argues the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to his care. We disagree. The father has not taken advantage of the services offered in his case permanency plan. His sporadic visits have been upsetting to the children. He has not demonstrated the basic parenting skills necessary to care for his children. In addition, he has ongoing legal problems and remains on probation. He has major depression and a personality disorder, and has failed to continue with medication and counseling for these mental health problems after treatment in January 2002. He has been diagnosed as cannabis dependent and has failed to attend treatment. Termination was appropriate under section 232.116(1)(h).
The father argues the DHS did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification. We find he has failed to preserve error on this issue. A challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised at the removal or review hearing or when the services are offered. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Because the father did not raise the lack of reasonable efforts until termination, we decline to address the issue. Furthermore, we reject the father's argument that he should have been granted additional time to obtain the necessary parenting skills. While the law requires a "full measure of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills," this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000).
Finally, we find termination to be in the children's best interest. In determining the best interests of a child, the court looks to the child's long-range and immediate interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). The court must consider the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child in deciding to terminate parental rights. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). At the time of the children's removal, they suffered from severe developmental delays and emotional problems. The children have been thriving in foster care. The children have no interest in their father and would be at risk of harm if returned to him.