Opinion
No. 4-858 / 04-1315
Filed December 22, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy Tabor, Judge.
M.G. appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Neill Kroeger, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Robert Phelps, Davenport, for father of R.G.
Carrie Coyle of Zamora, Taylor, Alexander, Woods Frederick, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
M.G. is the mother of V.V., born in August 2000, and R.G., born in September 2001. M.G. appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her children under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (2003) (circumstances continue despite the receipt of services) and (h) (child three or younger, removed for at least six months, and child cannot be returned home). The children were in the maternal great-grandmother's care, but she is no longer able to care for them, and since February 2004 they have been in foster care.
J.C., the father of R.G., also appealed, but the supreme court dismissed his appeal as untimely.
M.G. was in prison at the time of the termination hearing, and she does not claim the children could be returned to her care. On appeal, she asserts the Department of Human Services should have pursued placing the children with another relative, thus making termination of her parental rights unnecessary. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a) (stating the juvenile court need not terminate parental rights if "[a] relative has legal custody of the child.").
We determine M.G. has failed to preserve this issue for our review. An issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal, even an issue of constitutional dimensions. In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The juvenile court did not rule on this issue. When a juvenile court ruling fails to address an issue, a party must preserve error by filing a post-trial motion. See In re N.W.E., 564 N.W.2d 451, 455-56 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). M.G. did not file a post-trial motion seeking a ruling on this issue.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.