Opinion
No. 0-374 / 00-0048.
Filed August 30, 2000.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Juvenile Court Judge.
Father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his son. AFFIRMED.
Benjamin A. Yeggy of Gomez, May, Cartee Schutte, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Gerda C. Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Penelope Souhrada, Davenport, Guardian Ad Litem for minor child.
K.N. (mother) and Q.N. (father) are the parents of S.N., born July 5, 1998. The father and mother were involved in frequent violent and heated confrontations and arguments. The father was using drugs and threatened to kill some members of his family. The later part of August 1998 the neighbors called the police and they observed the mother outside the family home bleeding. The parents physically fought over baby S.N.
On August 31, 1998, S.N. was removed from his parents' care. The mother was intimidated by the father's threats of violence and was therefore unable to leave the relationship. She had received injuries from the father's assaults. The father had a history of violence and manipulation. His family members fear him and take his threats to kill them seriously.
We note, K.N. had an older son, John. Q.N. had physically abused John on at least two separate occasions. In November of 1996, Q.N. had twisted John's leg and caused a spiral fracture of the femur. From that time on John was unable to bear any weight on his leg. On March 19, 1997, John sustained life threatening injuries at the hands of Q.N. These injuries were acute subdural hemotomas and chronic subdural hemotomas (shaken baby syndrome). The baby John was suffering from seizing, vomiting, and having extreme difficulty breathing. Q.N. left the baby John alone on a couch with no caretakers while he went to Illinois to get the mother, K.N. John suffered permanent and irreparable brain damage and almost died from these injuries. The parental rights of K.N. and John's father to John were terminated by August 1998.
K.N. and Q.N. did not contest the CINA adjudicatory hearing held on October 22, 1998. S.N. was confirmed to be a child in need of assistance at a dispositional hearing held on February 2, 1999.
A termination hearing on S.N. was held on August 10, and December 15, 1999. On December 20, 1999, K.N. and Q.N.'s parental rights to S.N. were terminated. Q. N.'s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1) (c), (d), (f) and (g). K.N. (mother) does not appeal. Q.N. (father) appeals. We affirm.
I. Scope of Review.
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1994). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 830 (Iowa App. 1997). Our primary concern is the best interest of the children. In re A.B., 554N.W.2d 291, 293 (Iowa App. 1996).
II. Reasonable Services.
Q.N. claims the court erred in finding he was offered or received services to correct the circumstances which led to adjudication and the circumstances continue to exist despite the receipt of services.
We agree with the State appellant did not preserve error on this issue. The reasonableness of reunification efforts are the focus of CINA review hearings, not terminations. In re B.K.K., 500 N.W.2d 54, 57 (Iowa 1993). A parent's challenge to services should be made when they are offered not when termination of parental rights is sought after services have failed to remedy a parent's deficiencies. In re C.W., 522 N.W.2d 113, 117 (Iowa App. 1994). In this case, Q.N. was warned to this fact as early as October 23, 1998, at the adjudication hearing. Q.N. never requested additional or different services.
Even if Q.N. had preserved the reasonable services issue, when a parent is incapable of changing to allow the child to return home, termination is necessary. See In re T.T., 541 N.W.2d 552, 557 (Iowa App. 1995). Some progress is not enough. In re D.A., 506 N.W.2d 478, 479 (Iowa App. 1993). Q.N. made relatively no progress from the services he was offered by DHS. The parents re-located and moved many times and also moved out of the county for a period of time. They procrastinated in dealing with the requirements of the case permanency plan. The parents had finally completed an abbreviated batterer's education course and they still denied there had ever been any domestic violence in their home, despite evidence to the contrary. It is vital in a juvenile matter parents recognize abuse occurred. In re L.B., 530 N.W.2d 465, 468 (Iowa App. 1995). We affirm the juvenile court on this issue.
III. Significant Contact.
Q.N. claims the court erred in finding he had not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child S.N. during the previous six consecutive months and that he had made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so. The termination statute is preventative as well as remedial. The statute mandates action to prevent probable harm to children and does not require delay until the harm is done. In re A.R.S., 480 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 1992).
There were few things Q.N. had to do to comply with the case permanency plans. He was required to have a substance abuse evaluation and comply with all the recommendations. He had the evaluation and there were no recommendations for follow up. He was to enroll in batterer's education by September 30, 1998 and complete the program. He enrolled, but his attendance was sporadic and he was asked to re-enroll for this program. He finally completed an abbreviated program in 1999. The social workers were concerned that Q.N. did not ingest the domestic abuse concepts but merely attended the meetings. He still denied even domestic abuse incidents the mother had reported. After completion of the batterer's program the parents continued in an abusive relationship with each other. The father was also asked to remove all guns from the house. It is not known if this was accomplished.
Q.N. was to meet with the social services worker weekly to work on parenting skills, anger management, and communication skills. The social worker reported the father was inconsistent in meeting with the social worker, in addition to missing parent-child visitations. The Lutheran Social Services worker noted the parents move every few weeks and often do not appear to know their address. In addition, the parents have frequently changed employment. They have not made any significant progress towards case plan goals and are, for all practical purposes, in the same situation as when this case began. The Department of Human Services worker who had been involved in this case testified the father had not progressed in the case permanency plan to the point of eliminating risk of harm, should S.N. be returned to his care.
The juvenile court was correct in finding Q.N. had not maintained significant meaningful contact with S.N.
IV. Other Code Sections.
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only to find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa App. 1996). We have affirmed the juvenile court on sections 232.116 (1)(c) and (d). Therefore, we do not address Q.N.'s claims regarding sections 232.116 (1)(f) and (g).
We affirm the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.