IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0115
Filed March 21, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF M.H.,
Minor Child,
J.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Dustin A. Baker of Baker Law, Dubuque, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Sandra P. Trevino of Jensen & Trevino, P.C., East Dubuque, Illinois,
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in
2017. He contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with
the child.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The department of human services became involved with the family after
the child tested positive for marijuana at birth. The parents later underwent drug
testing and both tested positive for illegal substances.
When the child was a little over four weeks old, a department employee and
the Dubuque Drug Task Force went to the parents’ home to identify a sober
caregiver for the child. They found evidence of marijuana use on the porch. The
father would not admit the department employee into the home to check on the
child’s welfare. The State sought and obtained an order temporarily removing the
child from the home. At the same time, authorities arrested and jailed the father
for possession of drug paraphernalia.
Meanwhile, authorities obtained a search warrant for the home. They found
several pounds of methamphetamine and a loaded gun in a safe in the child’s
room. The State added charges of possession of marijuana, possession with
intent to deliver (methamphetamine), and possession of a firearm as a felon. The
father was jailed in various facilities throughout the juvenile court proceedings.
The child was adjudicated in need of assistance and remained out of the
parents’ home. The State eventually petitioned to terminate parental rights to the
child. Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court granted the petition. The
father appealed.
3
II. Reasonable Efforts
“‘[R]easonable efforts’ means the efforts made to preserve and unify a
family prior to the out-of-home placement of a child in foster care or to eliminate
the need for removal of the child or make it possible for the child to safely return to
the family’s home.” Iowa Code § 232.102(12) (2017). “[T]he scope of the efforts
by the [department] to reunify parent and child after removal impacts the burden
of proving those elements of termination which require reunification efforts.” In re
C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). “The State must show reasonable efforts
as a part of its ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a
parent.” Id.
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (I). Both provisions require proof of several
elements including proof the child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4), 232.116(1)(l)(3). This element “implicates the
reasonable effort requirement.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492 (stating statutory
termination grounds requiring proof child cannot be returned included reasonable
efforts requirement). Because it is an element the State must prove, we reject the
State’s contention that the father failed to preserve error by challenging the
requirement in juvenile court.
“The services required to be supplied an incarcerated parent, as with any
other parent, are only those that are reasonable under the circumstances.” In re
S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000). This court has stated:
In determining what services are reasonable under the
circumstances, the department may wish to consider some or all of
4
the following factors, among others, if applicable: the age of the
children, the bonding the children have or do not have with their
parent, including any existing clinical or other recommendations
concerning visitation, the nature of parenting deficiencies, the
physical location of the child and the parent, the limitations of the
place of confinement, the services available in the prison setting, the
nature of the offense, and the length of the parent’s sentence.
Id.
As noted, the child was just one month old when the father was arrested
and jailed in Dubuque County. The department case manager met with the father
every month while he was in the Dubuque County jail. However, she could not
facilitate visits with the child because the Dubuque County jail disallowed parent-
child visits. She testified the father also could not gain access to other reunification
services until the father’s charges were resolved and he was placed in a prison
setting.
Meanwhile, the father was transferred to jails in other counties. At least one
of the counties had less restrictive visitation policies than Dubuque County and the
father was allowed to see his child three times, albeit through glass barriers. At
the time of the termination hearing, the child was seven-and-a-half months old and
the case manager acknowledged the limited number of visits would have done little
to preserve the bond the father developed in the month after the child’s birth.
But even if the department had been able to facilitate additional visits, the
prospects for reunification were slim. The father testified he recently pled guilty to
federal charges of possession of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm
as a felon and he expected to be sentenced to a prison term. He acknowledged
the child could not be returned to his care now or any time in the near future.
5
In the face of the father’s multiple jail transfers and divergent jail policies,
we conclude the department did its best to comply with the reasonable efforts
mandate. We further conclude the State satisfied its burden of proving termination
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774
(Iowa 2012) (“When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find
supported by the record.”).
AFFIRMED.