Opinion
No. 3-455 / 03-0741.
Filed June 25, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Donavon D. Schaefer, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John P. Greer, Spencer, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha J. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Michael L. Zenor, County Attorney, and Charles Borth, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Shannon Sandy of the Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Troy H. is the father and Patricia A. is the mother of Tory H., born September 18, 1994. Patricia is also the mother of Robert F., born September 8, 1996. Robert F. resides with his father, Robert F., Jr. In December 2001, Tory and her brother were removed from Patricia's care because Patricia was living with a known sex offender who had sexually abused his own daughter. On January 4, 2002, the children were adjudicated in need of assistance.
On January 17, 2003, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Patricia and Troy's parental rights to Tory. The petition also sought termination of Patricia's parental rights to Robert F. Following trial, the juvenile court terminated Troy's parental rights to Tory pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) (child adjudicated in need of assistance, child removed for six months, and parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact) and 232.116(1)(f) (child is four years of age or older, child adjudicated in need of assistance, child removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned home) (2003). The court also terminated Patricia's parental rights to both Tory and Robert. The court placed Robert F. in the custody of Robert F., Jr., and placed Tory's custody with the Department of Human Services (DHS) for pre-adoptive placement in the home of Robert F., Jr. This appeal involves only the termination of Troy's parental rights to Tory.
Formerly Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and 232.116(1)(e) (2001).
We review termination of parental rights orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Troy raises two issues on appeal. He contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Tory could not be safely returned to him pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f). He also argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification as required under Iowa Code section 232.99(3) (2001). Other than the reasonable efforts challenge, Troy makes no objection to the termination under section 232.116(1)(e).
In order to terminate Troy's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f), the State was required to prove there was clear and convincing evidence Tory could not be returned to his father's care. Troy has never had a meaningful relationship with his daughter. Tory has been placed out of her parents' custody for more than half her life. During trial, Troy admitted that he failed to maintain a relationship with Tory and conceded that it was not in her best interests for her to move in with him. The trial court concluded it was unlikely Tory would even recognize her father. Any attempt to place Tory with her father would be traumatic for Tory and would severely limit her relationship with her brother. On our de novo review of the record, we conclude the State has proven all of the grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(f) by clear and convincing evidence.
Troy also claims the State did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification. A challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised at the removal or review hearing when services are offered. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Troy does not indicate how he preserved error on this issue. When the parent alleging inadequate services fails to demand services other than those provided, the issue of whether services were adequate is not preserved for appellate review. In the Interest of S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). We find Troy has failed to preserve error on this issue. Even if error had been preserved, Troy's argument would fail. The record reveals Troy has been an absent parent for the most of Tory's life. He failed to maintain contact with DHS as mandated by the case permanency plan and did not take advantage of opportunities to maintain contact with his daughter after she was placed in foster care. His self-serving explanations for his failure to maintain a relationship with his daughter are not persuasive.
We conclude clear and convincing evidence supports termination of the Troy's parental rights. We agree with the juvenile court's conclusion that termination of Troy's parental rights is in the child's best interests. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.