Opinion
No. 2-746 / 02-1108
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark Kruse, District Associate Judge.
D.C. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, J.C. AFFIRMED.
Andrew Hoth, Burlington, for appellant.
Robert Engler, Burlington, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel Northfield, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Alan Waples, Burlington, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Donald appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, J.C., pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (Supp. 2001). We affirm.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) provides:
h. The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings .
On July 12, 2001, J.C., age two, was removed from his mother's custody and placed in foster care based on her substance abuse and resulting denial of J.C.'s critical care. On July 18, 2001, the Iowa Department of Human Services filed a founded abuse report indicating Donald struck and injured J.C.'s mother in May 2001 while she was holding J.C. In August 2001 J.C. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(n) (2001) (parent's mental capacity or condition or drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). The subsequently entered dispositional order left J.C. in the Department's custody. The juvenile court also ordered services and visitation for both parents which were intended to resolve the circumstances causing J.C.'s adjudication and facilitate his prompt return to parental custody.
In a January 30, 2002, homestudy report, the Department concluded that Donald's criminal record and negative parenting history with four other children precluded J.C.'s placement with him. Following a March 2002 permanency hearing the juvenile court found:
[The father] has seen the child only two or three times since March of 2001. He refused to see the child at the DHS office which initially hindered visits. He did not immediately contact the Department regarding visitations when they were available. There is no indication that he participated in the parent skill development which was ordered by the court. When asked, he declined to give a urine sample for testing in January of 2002 under court order . . . The child has little familiarity with the father and in the short visits the father has shown few skills with which to parent a child.
The court thereupon directed the county attorney to institute termination proceedings.
The State initiated termination proceedings on May 9, 2002. In its petition for termination of parental rights, the State alleged J.C. could not be returned to Donald's custody citing Donald's extensive criminal record and sporadic visitation with J.C. The State asserted J.C.'s physical, mental, and emotional health required placement in a permanent, stable environment, which neither parent could provide.
J.C.'s mother did not contest termination of her parental rights. Donald denied the State's allegations and demanded that J.C. be immediately returned to his custody. At the termination hearing Donald testified that he had been living in New Jersey with relatives since February 2002 and that his relatives were available to help him care for J.C.
In its findings of fact entered following the termination hearing, the court said:
The father has failed to provide urine tests when requested, has failed to fully abide by orders for visitation, has failed to attend parent skill development, and has failed to get a substance abuse evaluation as ordered by the court. He has failed to keep the Department apprised of his address. The father presented no reasonable explanation as to why he failed to do these things. The father, for the most part, wholly ignored the ordered services.
In addition, the court found that any bond between Donald and J.C. was negligible. Based on these findings, the juvenile court terminated Donald's parental rights to J.C. on the grounds earlier referred to, resulting in this appeal.
On appeal Donald raises the following issues: (1) the record does not support a finding that there were reasonable efforts to reunite Donald with his son; (2) the juvenile court should have granted Donald an additional six months of services to facilitate reunification with J.C.; (3) the court failed to consider relative placements as an alternative to termination of Donald's parental rights.
II. Scope of Review .
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). Although we are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court's findings of fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g); In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 5 (Iowa 1993).
III. The Merits .
The primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(o); In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998). To support the termination of parental rights, the State must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116 (Supp. 2001) by clear and convincing evidence. See Iowa Code § 232.116. "Clear and convincing evidence" means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness or conclusions of law drawn from the evidence. See Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa Ct.App. 1983).
The State has the burden to show reasonable efforts at family reunification were made as part of its ultimate proof that a child cannot be safely returned to parental custody. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). A parent is required to object to the services provided or request additional services as early as possible so timely and appropriate changes can be made to accomplish reunification prior to commencement of termination proceedings. Id. at 493-94 (citing In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 791 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997)). Failure to do so may result in waiver of appellate review on this issue. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Our review of the record fails to disclose Donald's objection to the adequacy of services provided or request for additional services. He has accordingly failed to preserve this issue for our consideration.
Even if we were to conclude otherwise, the record indicates the State met its reasonable efforts burden in this case. As the earlier recited findings indicate, Donald received a number of services designed to improve his parenting skills. He was also furnished with opportunities to visit J.C., which were intended to facilitate family reunification. Any failure to accomplish family reunification is clearly attributable to Donald's negative response to the services provided rather than their reasonableness or sufficiency.
The record indicates that the remaining issues Donald raises on appeal were not ruled on by the juvenile court. Because Donald did not file a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) in either the permanency or termination proceedings, he has not preserved these issues for our consideration. See In re A.R., 316 N.W.2d 887, 889 (Iowa 1982); In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The decision of the juvenile court is accordingly affirmed.
AFFIRMED.