IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.F., 699 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa App. 2005)

No. 5-376 / 05-0472Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 25, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Robert Sosalla, Judge.

A father appeals the district court’s termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Richard Pazdernik, Jr., of Nazette, Marner, Wendt, Knoll
Usher, Cedar Rapids, for father-appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

John Hedgecoth, Cedar Rapaids, for the mother.

Ronald Ricklefs, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for the child.

Katherine McConnell, of Lloyd, McConnell Davis, L.L.P., Washington, for the mother.

Roxann Romig, Albion, pro se.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

VAITHESWARAN, J.

Larry appeals a ruling terminating his parental rights to Alex, born in October 2003. The district court relied on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2005), a statutory ground for termination requiring proof, in part, that “the child cannot be returned to the parents’ custody at the present time.”

Larry does not contest the portion of the district court’s conclusion that Alex could not be immediately returned to him. Instead, he contends (1) the Department of Human Services did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification, and (2) termination of his parental rights was not in the child’s best interests. Our review of these issues is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.

I. Reasonable Efforts
The Department is required to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). This requirement is part of the State’s “ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of the parent.” Id.

Alex was removed from his parents’ care two months after his birth, due to excessive alcohol use by his mother. He remained out of his parents’ care for the balance of the proceedings.

Following Alex’s removal, the Department scheduled bi-weekly supervised visitation for two hours each time. The Department had plans to grant Larry an upgrade to semi-supervised visitation but this did not materialize because Larry violated a directive to stay away from Alex’s mother.

The Department also afforded Larry informal parenting advice during visitation sessions and assisted him in obtaining parenting information from the local library. Although the Department did not enroll him in formal parenting education sessions, Larry’s reaction to the library visit suggests he would not have benefited from such a structured learning environment.

Finally, the Department helped set up a mental health evaluation of Larry. Larry did not request additional or different services.

Given Larry’s limited progress toward unsupervised visitation after a year of supervised visitation, we agree with the district court that the Department satisfied its obligation to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.

II. Best Interests
The State also must prove that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. In re C.B, 611 N.W.2d at 492.

We recognize, as the district court did, that Larry had “the best of intentions.” He consistently attended visits and obtained a mental health evaluation, as instructed. This effort was laudable but insufficient.

Both the service provider who supervised visits and a Department employee testified that Larry would be unable to keep Alex safe. They pointed to Larry’s surreptitious contact with Alex’s mother, an active alcoholic who placed Alex and her other children in harm’s way. While Larry testified at the termination hearing that he was no longer in touch with her, the district court was justified in considering the fact that similar assurances in the past proved to be untrue.

There was also concern about Larry’s ability to parent Alex independently. Although the individual who supervised visits could not point to any serious parenting deficiencies during visitation, she testified that Larry would need “help with parenting on a continuing basis.” This opinion was partially corroborated by the mental health evaluator, who expressed “concern as to this person’s ability to effectively parent without significant support.” While recognizing that Larry was

“free of any marked emotional disturbance,” the evaluator continued, “[t]est results suggest an individual who may struggle with responsibility and who may have difficulty maintaining a commitment to long-term goals and tasks.”

The district court assessed whether termination of Larry’s parental rights was in Alex’s best interests and concluded:

[i]t is evident that Larry loves his son a great deal. He truly desires to be Alex’s long-term caregiver. The tragedy is that, despite Larry’s best efforts, the evidence does not demonstrate that this is a realistic outcome in this case.

We agree with this assessment.

AFFIRMED.