Opinion
No. 2-977 / 02-1794.
Filed December 30, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, GERALD MAGEE, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Parents appeal from the order terminating their parental rights to their daughter. AFFIRMED.
Theodore Hovda, Garner, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Karen Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Philip Garland, Garner, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and ZIMMER and HECHT, JJ.
Todd H. and Rachel H. are the parents of Jasmine, who was born on April 8, 2001. The family first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) shortly after Jasmine was born when hospital staff expressed concerns that Todd and Rachel could not adequately provide Jasmine her basic needs. The staff was also concerned Todd had threatened to remove Jasmine from the hospital despite the fact she had been born prematurely and was having difficulty breathing. The State removed the child and the DHS made a founded child abuse report. The juvenile court later adjudicated Jasmine to be in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b) (2001) on July 9, 2001. The court found Jasmine was imminently likely to be neglected or abused if in the care of her parents due to their low intellectual functioning, lack of basic parenting skills, and the unsanitary condition of their home.
On March 26, 2002, the State filed a petition to terminate Todd and Rachel's parental rights to Jasmine. Following a subsequent trial, the court terminated their parental rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(h) (Supp. 2001). Both Todd and Rachel appeal from this order.
Formerly Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) (2001).
We review termination of parental rights orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Rachel and Todd first maintain the State did not make reasonable efforts and did not provide them with necessary services to enable them to reunite with Jasmine. However, despite this assertion, both Todd and Rachel claimed at trial to already possess sufficient skills and knowledge to adequately care for Jasmine without further services. As the district court noted in its ruling, the State provided the family with Family Centered Services, including weekly discussions of child development and supervised visits four to five hours per week, psychological evaluations, Red Cross CPR training, individual therapy for Todd, and hospital instruction on basic infant care techniques. Given their lack of progress in the services offered to them and the lack of evidence they specifically requested additional help, we conclude the State made reasonable efforts to reunite Jasmine with Todd and Rachel.
Todd and Rachel next assert there was not clear and convincing evidence Jasmine could not be returned to their custody. On our de novo review of the record we conclude clear and convincing exists that Jasmine cannot be returned to Todd and Rachel's custody. See In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981) (noting the termination statutes are preventative as well as remedial). Both Todd and Rachel exhibit low level intellectual functioning, a lack of understanding of basic needs of a young child, and a lack of ability to comprehend child-rearing skills taught to them. Todd possesses significant anger management issues and is suspicious of authorities. Moreover, despite efforts of service providers, their home, which housed a number of animals, was unkempt, unsafe, and otherwise unsuitable for children.
Finally, Todd and Rachel argue termination is not in Jasmine's best interests. We recognize that termination is not mandatory upon a finding that all of the applicable statutory elements have been met, In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 552 (Iowa 1993), and that in addition to meeting the statutory requirements for termination, the termination must be in the best interest of the child. In re T.Q., 519 N.W.2d 105, 106 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Based on considerations mentioned earlier in this opinion, we conclude termination is in Jasmine's best interests.