Opinion
No. 2-298 / 02-0224.
Filed April 24, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, MARK KRUSE, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Ronald Ellerhoff, Burlington, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, M. Elise Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, and Ty Rogers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Scott Schroeder, Burlington, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Michael has one child, Cody, born in 1998. Before Cody's birth, Michael pled guilty to indecent contact with a child and served a sentence for the crime. Later, he and his wife struggled with homelessness and unemployment. The parents periodically requested that Cody and another child be placed in foster care. Their requests were granted several times.
In January 2000, the Department of Human Services (department) removed the children because of the condition of the parents' home. Following the removal, Michael underwent counseling, obtained a job, and found a home. He also exercised regular supervised visitation with his young son. The department, nevertheless, determined that Michael remained at high risk of committing another sexual crime and recommended termination of his parental rights as well as those of Cody's mother.
She is not a party to this appeal. The father of her other child Sandy also is not a party to this appeal.
The State filed a termination petition against both parents. As to Cody, the juvenile court granted the petition pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116 (1)(g) (2001) (child under three years of age cannot be returned to the home). Michael appeals.
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) has been renumbered as 232.116(1)(h) effective April 24, 2001.
II. Legal Issues
Michael contends: (1) the juvenile court considered issues that had been resolved; (2) the juvenile court relied solely on his guilty plea in terminating his rights; and (3) the department did not make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his son. On our de novo review, we disagree.
First, although Michael made every effort to comply with department edicts, he was unable to satisfactorily address the department's primary concern: his risk of committing another sexual crime. As the juvenile court stated Michael "maintained employment, kept a home, [and] kept an interest in his child. . . ." but had "not acknowledged in any meaningful way his part in the crime" to which he pled guilty.
This finding is amply supported by the record. Michael's counselor wrote that, while Michael had good attendance and was open about himself, he struggled with "developing appropriate empathy." The counselor also stated Michael's sense of boundaries was "distorted." He further noted Michael was not sure whether sex with a child would result in emotional trauma to the child. The counselor also pointed out that Michael was continuing to fraternize with sexual offenders and failed to see the importance of keeping his son away from them. The counselor concluded,
I believe Michael wants to be a good father to his son. However, Michael's behavior seems to be heavily guided by his instincts. Some of the boundaries he has placed on his relationships seem to place him in fairly high risk situations. Future behaviors for Michael are difficult to predict because he has shown the ability to understand what behaviors are acceptable but has also shown tendencies to rely on his own past experiences to determine what action to take. If Michael relies solely on his old instincts he is a fairly high risk to re-offend, however, if he sticks with techniques he has learned throughout the past couple of years it does not appear that he would be any higher risk than any other convicted sex offender that has been rehabilitated.
In addition to this report, the record contains a reference to the counselor's sworn opinion affirming he would not be comfortable with the thought of Cody living with Michael on an unsupervised basis.
We believe the counselor's equivocal assessment of Michael's progress gave the department justifiable cause for concern. A social worker testified that Michael still had to learn more about child development, needed to continue to reduce the risk of another sex offense, and had to develop a plan to care for his child. Given his limited progress in the first two areas, we agree with the juvenile court's decision to terminate his parental rights.
Michael offered testimony from a woman who was willing and able to care for Cody.
Our discussion of the first issue also resolves Michael's second challenge, the juvenile court's reliance on his guilty plea. For the stated reasons, that reliance was justified. Additionally, we note the court did cite to other grounds to terminate Michael's parental rights. The court explained that "there were serious concerns about the basic care of the children." The court also noted Michael was currently living with multiple relatives and was experiencing a "relationship crisis" with his fiancé. For these reasons, we reject Michael's second challenge to the termination order.
Finally, we are persuaded that the department made reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.102(7) and (10)(a). In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492-93 (Iowa 2000). The department provided supervised visitation, parent-skills training, and home care services. The department also facilitated Michael's mental health treatment. We conclude these services satisfied the reasonable efforts mandate.
We affirm the juvenile court order terminating Michael's right to parent Cody.
AFFIRMED.