No. 5-557 / 05-0921Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed July 27, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Thomas M. Horan, Judge.
A father and mother appeal the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Henry Keyes of Keyes Law Offices, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.
Phillip Seidl of Seidl Chicchelly, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Carrie Bryner, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.
HUITINK, P.J.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Duane and Kristina are the parents of Jeffrey, born in May 2001, and Duane Jr. (D.J.), born in November 2002. Duane has a prior conviction for sexual abuse of minor. There were incidents of domestic abuse in the family. The parents’ relationship was very unstable; they separated several times. The parents had difficulty adequately providing food, clothing, and shelter for the children. At times the family was homeless. In November 2003 they voluntarily placed the children with a paternal aunt.
On April 2, 2004, the juvenile court entered an order adjudicating Jeffrey and D.J. to be children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) (2001) (parent fails to provide adequate food, clothing, or shelter). The children were placed in the care of the parents. A dispositional order was entered on May 27, 2004, ordering the parents to continue cooperation with services. The services which were offered in this case included family-centered services, psychological evaluations, and anger management counseling.
The children were removed from the parents’ care in July 2004 when the parents were unemployed and homeless. The children were again placed with the paternal aunt. Kristina separated from Duane for a final time in August 2004. She stated Duane was physically and emotionally abusive to her. Duane soon moved in with a new girlfriend, Cathy, and eventually married her.
Duane completed a parenting class and an anger management class. Duane had a mental health evaluation and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and a personality disorder. Duane admitted his life was unstable. A psychologist stated, “Basically, it seems the instability of the situation is so great he would not be able to be an effective parent for such young children.”
A service provider reported:
Despite Duane’s attendance in Anger Management class . . ., Duane has not reduced the amount or intensity of his verbal outbursts. The emotionally controlling nature of his contact with others leads to concern that he has not internalized instruction that he has received. . . . Duane is very confrontational and verbally aggressive when he receives negative feedback. He has a tendency to overstate things in dramatic and conflictual ways.
Duane continually denied that he had any parenting deficiencies.
In April 2005 the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parental rights of Duane and Kristina. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(e) (2005) (child CINA, removed for six months, and parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with child) and (h) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed for at least six months, and cannot be returned home). The court found the parents “have no meaningful relationship with their children and have a history that establishes a clear pattern of parental unfitness.” Duane appeals. Kristina has filed an appeal stating she seeks reversal of the juvenile court decision only if we reverse as to Duane.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Duane claims there is insufficient evidence in the record to support termination of his parental rights. He points out that he made progress with services. He believes the children could be returned to his care.
We find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of Duane’s parental rights. We look to a parent’s past performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). Duane’s history of domestic abuse and problems with anger management indicate he is not capable of providing adequate care for the children. We conclude the children may not be safely returned to his care, and Duane’s parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(h).
When the juvenile court terminated parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). We do not address the other ground for termination in this case.
IV. Reasonable Efforts
Duane contends the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite him with his children. He claims he should have been granted additional visitation with the children. Duane filed several requests seeking unsupervised visitation time.
Reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child are required prior to termination of parental rights. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Reasonable efforts include a visitation arrangement designed to facilitate reunification while protecting the children from the harm responsible for the removal. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). The nature and extent of visitation is controlled by the best interests of the children. Id.
We find the visitation offered to Duane was reasonable under the facts of this case. Duane never progressed to a point where unsupervised visitation would have been advisable. It would not have been in the children’s best interests to further increase visitation.
V. Due Process
Duane contends that he was denied due process by the Department’s failure to accommodate visits. Duane did not raise this issue before the juvenile court, and we determine is has not been preserved for our review. See In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994) (stating an issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal, even an issue of constitutional dimensions).
VI. Best Interests
Duane asserts that it is not in the children’s best interests to terminate his parental rights. Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the children. In re M.M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In considering a child’s best interests, we look to the child’s long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).
We find termination of Duane’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Due to his anger management problems, Duane is unable to meet the needs of the children. We note that the children were developmentally delayed when they were removed from the home, but they have made great progress in the care of the paternal aunt.
We conclude the juvenile court properly terminated Duane’s parental rights to Jeffrey and D.J. Because we have affirmed the termination of Duane’s parental rights, we do not need to address Kristina’s arguments which sought a reversal of the termination order only in the event we reversed the termination of Duane’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.