Opinion
No. 2-748 / 02-1227
Filed September 25, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Jane Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children, contending the children could be returned home and that the Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. AFFIRMED.
John Nemmers of Reynolds Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Jean Becker, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Monica Ackley, Dubuque, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Hecht, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Michael has three daughters: Steffanie, born in 1989, Sarah, born in 1991, and Meagan, born in 1987. The children were removed from Michael's home after methamphetamine was detected in his system. The juvenile court eventually terminated Michael's parental rights to Steffanie and Sarah and ordered Meagan placed in long-term foster care. Michael appeals this ruling, contending: (1) the State failed to prove that the children could not be returned to him and (2) the Department of Human Services did not satisfy its reasonable efforts mandate. We affirm.
I. Return of Children
The juvenile court terminated Michael's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (child cannot be returned to home) (2001). On our de novo review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence to support this ground for termination. In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 693 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).
That provision is now at Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (Supp. 2001).
Michael was released from an Illinois prison to a homeless shelter just ten days before the termination hearing. Although he claimed he had spoken to an uncle about staying with him, he had not made any long-term living arrangements and had no job prospects. There was also overwhelming evidence that he could not remain substance-free in an unsupervised setting. For these reasons we conclude this statutory ground for termination was satisfied.
II. Reasonable Efforts
Michael 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). He points to the fact that he received no services during the three months he was incarcerated in Illinois.
While the Department did not offer Michael services during this three-month period, the record is replete with services that the Department provided in the year preceding this period of confinement.
The children were removed from Michael's home in March 2001. Within a week, the Department initiated bi-weekly supervised visitation between Michael and the children. Michael missed two visits during the first month and then was incarcerated pending resolution of a probation revocation charge. He had no visitation for a period of two and a half months. When Michael was released, the Department had him undergo a substance abuse evaluation. The evaluator recommended inpatient treatment, which Michael declined to pursue. Later, he agreed to participate in services provided by the Substance Abuse Services Center and also began exercising regular visitation with his daughters. The Center reported he was "doing everything that has been asked of him."
Just as reunification appeared possible, Michael again began engaging in criminal conduct which resulted in his reincarceration and an eventual sentence for attempted burglary. The Department afforded him one "good-bye" visit with the children before he was transferred to the Illinois prison.
We conclude the Department satisfied its reasonable efforts mandate.