No. 4-459 / 04-0828.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
July 28, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Brian L. Michaelson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal from a juvenile court order which terminated their parental rights to their three children. AFFIRMED.
James H. Pickner, Hawarden, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa O’Rourke, County Attorney, and Coleman McAllister, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Armando Ortiz, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Curtis Puetz, Sioux Center, attorney for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.
ZIMMER, J.
Charity and Kevin B. appeal from a juvenile court order which terminated their parental rights to their three children. Charity claims the State failed to make reasonable efforts to provide her with services, because it failed to provide her with the counseling she requested. Additionally, both Charity and Kevin maintain that termination is not in their children’s best interests. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the termination order.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Charity and Kevin are the married parents of Andrew, born in May 1993, Ashley, born in December 1995, and Brent, born in April 1997. The family has a long history with the Department of Human Services (DHS). In February 1995, the DHS received a complaint that the family’s home was unsafe and a danger to Andrew, who was then a toddler. A subsequent investigation revealed the family home was filthy and in complete disarray. The home contained many health hazards, including: the presence of animal feces, broken glass, and an infestation of fruit flies. Additionally, every flat surface space in the home was covered with clutter. In March 1995, a founded report for denial of critical care and failure to provide adequate shelter was filed.
The DHS provided family centered services to Charity and Kevin from February 1995 until February 1996. These services were focused on giving the parents the skills necessary to properly maintain their home and raise Andrew. However, in July 1995, the DHS received another complaint which indicated the family residence was filthy and had no running water or electricity. A DHS investigation revealed the home contained broken glass, dirty dishes, and spoiled food. The home had no electricity, but did have running water. Another founded report for denial of critical care and failure to provide proper shelter was filed.
The family next came to the attention of the DHS in late 1999, when the department received a complaint of physical abuse concerning Andrew. An investigation resulted in a founded report of physical abuse. In March 2001, the DHS received a complaint that Charity and Kevin’s home was again a health hazard. This led to yet another founded report for denial of critical care and failure to provide proper shelter.
In May 2001, the DHS received a complaint that the family home was once again filthy. The investigation which followed confirmed the home was in total disarray. The residence was permeated with the odor of cat feces, much of the carpet was soaked with urine, and garbage was strewn throughout the home. The children’s sheets were dirty and had a strong odor of mildew. The children were found barefoot and dirty. A child protective worker concluded the “entire residence was deplorable and in a dilapidated state.” In June 2001, a report was founded for denial of critical care and failure to provide adequate shelter. The DHS recommended juvenile court involvement and the entire family was moved into the maternal grandparent’s home.
In July 2001, all three children were adjudicated children in need of assistance. That same month family centered services were again initiated. Jeff Lillefloren, an in-home worker, was assigned to the family. He provided skill development and supervision services to Charity and Kevin for slightly more than two years. Despite Lillefloren’s best efforts, Charity and Kevin failed to demonstrate the ability to maintain a clean and safe home for the children.
A community treatment worker provided services to Charity and Kevin from July 2001 until September 2002. She demonstrated housekeeping techniques to Charity and Kevin in an effort to ensure that their home was not a safety hazard to the children. She noted the parents were unwilling or unable to follow through with the training she provided and could not keep a reasonably clean home for any length of time on their own.
In September 2001, the juvenile court entered a dispositional order which placed custody of the three children with Charity and Kevin subject to protective supervision by the DHS. In May 2002, the DHS initiated financial counseling services for Charity and Kevin. However, Charity and Kevin were not honest regarding their earnings and expenditures and continually failed to keep their appointments.
In June 2002, the State filed a motion to modify the dispositional order because of deteriorating conditions in the family home, which resulted in the family being evicted from their residence. School officials reported the children were unkempt, dirty, and exhibiting poor personal hygiene. Andrew and Ashley were absent from school or tardy on a regular basis and neighbors were complaining that the children were unsupervised. On June 14, 2002, the juvenile court modified the prior dispositional order to place custody of the three children with the DHS for purposes of placement in family foster care. The court also ordered a psychological evaluation of Charity and Kevin.
The children experienced problems in foster care, because they did not understand simple concepts such as having a bed time, respecting other people’s property, having family meals, or personal hygiene. Charity and Kevin’s psychological testing resulted in a finding that both parents have characteristics and beliefs that are typical of parents who abuse or neglect their children. Both parents also scored very poorly in the area of parental empathy toward children’s needs.
Charity and Kevin’s situation improved while the children were in foster care. The parents found suitable housing and obtained employment. As a result, on January 9, 2003, the juvenile court returned custody of the children to Charity and Kevin, with ongoing protective supervision by the DHS. However, after the children returned to their parent’s care, they began to exhibit behavioral problems in school. The children’s personal hygiene also deteriorated. The family’s service providers became increasingly concerned that Charity and Kevin were once again failing to adequately supervise their children and keep their home clean.
On January 12, 2003, the children’s guardian ad litem, Armando Ortiz, conducted a home visit. He thought the children appeared to be happy. They told him that they liked “not having to go to bed early and having to clean up after themselves.” Soon after the children were returned to their parent’s care, the DHS received anonymous phone calls from people who had concerns about the safety of the children. The children reportedly were unsupervised and outside by themselves until midnight. They had been breaking windows in their neighborhood with rocks and were complaining of being hungry.
In August 2003, the DHS received a complaint that the children had been playing with cigarette lighters without supervision and had vandalized a neighbor’s home. An investigation resulted in a founded report for denial of critical care and failure to provide adequate supervision. The children were referred to the Fire Setters Program at St. Luke’s Hospital in Sioux City. However, the children never attended this program.
In September 2003, Charity and Kevin fled Iowa with their children. They left all of the personal belongings at their home and left the family dog tied up at the home without food or water. On September 29, 2003, the juvenile court entered a Temporary Removal Order.
On October 17, 2003, law enforcement officers took custody of the children in Pipestone, Minnesota. Charity and Kevin were living in Pipestone with Kevin’s brother, Harold. Harold has a lengthy criminal history, which includes charges of assault and drug possession. Sexual abuse allegations have also been made against Harold and his children have apparently been removed from his care due to these allegations. On November 17, 2003, the juvenile court placed custody of the children with the DHS for purposes of placement in family foster care. The court also ordered that termination proceedings be initiated.
In December 2003, a DHS investigation into the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse resulted in a sixth founded child abuse report concerning the three children. The report was founded on several issues, including: Harold sexually abusing Brent, the sexual abuse of Brent by omission by his parents, the parents’ failure to provide proper supervision of the children by removing them from services in Iowa and exposing them to a known sex offender, the parents’ giving Andrew alcohol, and Kevin hitting Brent with a flyswatter, which caused bruising.
On February 20, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Charity and Kevin to their three children. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated Charity and Kevin’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2003) (children adjudicated in need of assistance for abuse or neglect, circumstances continue to exist despite receipt of services). The children were placed in the custody of the DHS for adoptive placement. Charity and Kevin appeal.
II. Scope of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2001). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Charity claims the State failed to make reasonable efforts to provide her with services, because it failed to provide her with the counseling she requested. Additionally, both Charity and Kevin maintain that termination is not in their children’s best interests.
A. Reasonable Efforts
We find this issue was not properly preserved. The reasonableness of reunification efforts is not the focus of termination hearings. In re B.K.K., 500 N.W.2d 54, 57 (Iowa 1993). A challenge to services should be made when the case plan is entered not when the termination is sought. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). A parent’s challenge to services should be made when they are offered not when the 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 Ct.App. 1994). No evidence appears in the record that Charity challenged the services at the appropriate time. Accordingly, this issue was not preserved.
Even if this issue was properly before us, we would reject this assignment of error. Charity claims that she did not receive the counseling that she requested. The record reveals both parents were offered and received virtually every imaginable service at least once over a period of eight years. Furthermore, when Charity asked a DHS worker for additional counseling services, the worker provided her with a list of names and phone numbers of providers who were available to assist her. The record reveals Charity failed to call any of the available providers to set up an appointment. Moreover, based on the mother’s history, it is highly unlikely that she would have benefited from any additional services. We also find it significant that the father did not allege any additional services were necessary. Since the parents are still together, Charity’s claim has no real impact on the issue of removal. We conclude that reasonable efforts were made to reunify Charity and Kevin with their children.
B. Best Interests
Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must be in the children’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). Charity and Kevin maintain termination is not in the children’s best interests. We disagree. Charity and Kevin have yet to demonstrate that they can maintain a safe, healthy, wholesome, and stable environment for their children. We agree with the juvenile court that if the children were returned to Charity and Kevin they would be at a high risk of further adjudicatory harm. Termination of Charity and Kevin’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children.
AFFIRMED.