No. 4-174 / 04-0192Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed March 24, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Jaskolka-Brown, of Sullivan Ward, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jennifer Galloway Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Alexandra Nelissen, of the Nelissen Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Victoria Meade, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for the child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Dana consented to the termination of her parental rights to K.H., born on November 15, 2002. She now contends the juvenile court should have verbally ensured that the document was signed with knowledge of its implications. However, Dana did not appear at the termination hearing to make such a record. Additionally, her attorney stated, “[Dana] believes [the consent] is in the best interest of the child and agrees to terminate her rights.” When the prosecutor attempted to raise Dana’s possibly “false assumption” about the finality of termination, Dana’s attorney objected on hearsay grounds and stated, “I met with her after she signed the consent to make sure she made an informed decision, and she understands the finality of this.”[1] On this record, we find no basis for a challenge to Dana’s consent to termination of her parental rights. See Iowa Code §232.116(1)(a)(2003) (authorizing consensual termination).
Dana also contends termination was not in the child’s best interests. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). On our de novo review of the record, we disagree. Dana is a methamphetamine addict. She gave birth to K.H., who also had the substance in her system. She subsequently was arrested and convicted of drug-related crimes. In August 2003, Dana began serving a prison term. The juvenile court estimated that she would remain in prison for thirty-three months.
Meanwhile, K.H. spent all but three days of her life with relatives. At the time of the termination hearing, she was in the home of a paternal aunt. The child’s attorney characterized this home as “very appropriate” and a physician who examined K.H. viewed her as “an active, happy, and healthy child.” On this record, we agree with the juvenile court that termination was in K.H.’s best interests.
Dana finally argues that the Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493. However, the juvenile court expressly waived the reasonable efforts requirement. Additionally, the record reflects that the Department offered supervised visitation immediately following the child’s removal. About a month after K.H.’s birth, the Department also helped facilitate urine screens and scheduled a psychosocial evaluation for Dana. Dana declined these services. Although she later renewed her interest in reunification services, she continued to resist providing urine samples and did not reschedule her psychosocial evaluation. We conclude that, even if the court had not waived the reasonable efforts requirements, the Department satisfied its mandate.
We affirm the termination of Dana’s parental rights to K.H.
AFFIRMED.
Page 448