No. 5-185 / 04-1930.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 31, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. Stovall, Judge.
P.R. appeals from the termination of her parental rights to C.A.R. and J.L.R. AFFIRMED.
Robert A. Wright, Jr. of Wright Wright, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Gogerty, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Bryan Tingle of Kragnes Koenig, P.L.C., Des Moines, for father.
Charles Fuson of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
HUITINK, P.J.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Paula and Tim are the parents of twins, Christina and Joey, who were born prematurely in December 2003.[1] Paula is intellectually challenged. Because of their premature birth, the children have medical problems, especially Joey. Hospital staff became concerned that Paula would be unable to meet the children’s special needs, and they contacted the Iowa Department of Human Services.
When the children were discharged from the hospital in February 2004, Christina was placed in foster care. Joey was placed in a skilled nursing facility for children until March 2004, when he was also placed in foster care. On April 1, 2004, the children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent’s failure to supervise) and (n) (parent’s mental condition results in child not receiving adequate care). A dispositional order was entered on May 13, 2004. Paula was ordered to comply with the case permanency plan.
Paula participated in a social history. She receives adult services, such as rental assistance and a protective payee. Paula had a psychosocial evaluation and a neuropsychological evaluation. She was diagnosed with mild mental retardation, depression, and a schizotypal personality disorder. Paula participates in individual therapy and psychiatric care. Paula received in-home services for one-on-one parenting instruction and skill development.
Paula also attended supervised visitation with the children. Although she participated in services, Paula continually struggled to retain information. Paula became easily frustrated and would tell social workers she did not know what to do. Social workers needed to prompt Paula to provide for the basic needs of the children, such as feeding them or changing their diapers.
In July 2004 the State filed a petition seeking termination of Paula’s parental rights. The juvenile court terminated Paula’s rights under section 232.116(h) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed for at least six months, and cannot be returned home). The court found that “the children have special needs, Joey more acutely than Christina, and the mother’s level of mental competency is such that she cannot minimally provide the same.” Paula appeals.
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).
III. Americans with Disabilities Act
Paula claims that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (1990), the State should have done more to reasonably accommodate her mental disability. The ADA requires a public entity to make “reasonable accommodation” to allow a disabled person to receive services or to participate in the public entity’s programs. In re C.M., 526 N.W.2d 562, 566 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). A party may not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. Id. Paula did not raise this issue before the juvenile court, and we determine it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420
(Iowa Ct.App. 1995) (noting an issue not presented to and passed on by the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal).
IV. Reasonable Efforts
Paula also claims the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children. Prior to termination of parental rights, the State has the obligation to offer reasonable services to preserve the family unit. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The parent, however, has the responsibility to challenge or object to the services provided prior to the termination hearing. In re M.B., 595 N.W.2d 815, 818 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
We adopt the juvenile court’s findings on this issue, as follows:
At the time of hearing, much of the mother’s case was based on the premise that the Department had not provided sufficient and/or adequate services. On April 1, 2004, and May 13, 2004, the Court made determinations that reasonable efforts had been made by DHS to eliminate the need for removal of these children from the home. There is no evidence in this record that the mother, prior to this termination hearing, ever challenged the sufficiency of services or ever brought to the attention of the Court that additional services were warranted. Consequently, she is estopped now from making such a challenge. The Court finds that all of the aforementioned services constitute reasonable efforts on the part of DHS to eliminate the need for removal.
V. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Paula contends the State did not present sufficient evidence to warrant termination of her parental rights. She asserts that she would be able to take care of the twins. In the alternative, she states that Christina could be returned to her care, because she does not have the medical problems that Joey does. We determine there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show that Paula cannot adequately care for the twins, either individually or together. Paula was unable to master the basic skills needed to care for her children. It is clear the children could not be safely returned to her care.
VI. Best Interests
Paula claims it is not in the best interests of the children terminate her parental rights. Again she focuses on Christina, and asserts that this child could have been placed in her care with in-home nursing services. We conclude it is in the children’s best interests to terminate Paula’s parental rights. Paula is unable to meet the needs of either child.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.