IN THE INTEREST OF N.L.A., Minor Child, J.P.C., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-305 / 07-0642
Filed May 9, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF N.L.A.,
Minor Child,
J.P.C., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Lori Ubbinga, Sioux City, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Dewey Sloan,
Assistant County Attorney.
Patrick Tott, Sioux City, for appellee mother.
Marchelle Denker, Sioux City, for the minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Joshua is the father of Natasha, born in 2006. Natasha was removed
from her parents’ care based on concerns that the parents were not properly
attending to her medical needs and were allowing their living conditions to
deteriorate. The district court eventually terminated Joshua’s parental rights to
Natasha pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (requiring proof of
several elements including proof that parent was “offered or received services to
correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance
continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services”), (e) (requiring proof of
several elements including proof that “the parents have not maintained significant
and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six months”); and (h)
(requiring proof of several elements including proof that “child cannot be returned
to the custody of the child’s parent”) (2005).
On appeal, Joshua contends “the State did not provide reasonable efforts
to reunify [him] with his child.” Joshua is correct that each of the grounds for
termination cited by the district court “implicates the reasonable effort
requirement.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). This requirement is
a part of the State’s “ultimate proof.” Id. at 493.
Reviewing the record de novo, we conclude the State satisfied its burden
of proving that it made reasonable efforts to reunify Joshua with Natasha. The
Iowa Department of Human Services arranged for a psychological and a
psychosocial evaluation of Joshua.
The department also developed a
collaborative treatment plan, imposing on itself an obligation to monitor the
parents’ care of Natasha and to assist the parents in developing parenting skills.
3
To implement this plan, the department arranged for supervised visits and
parenting sessions.
The parents’ deteriorating relationship with each other impeded their
progress toward reunification. Approximately two months before the termination
hearing, Joshua moved out-of-state. The department attempted to schedule a
family team meeting with the parents. Neither parent responded.
Joshua did not appear at the termination hearing or otherwise challenge
the “reasonable efforts” evidence presented by the State. A department social
worker did appear. She testified to additional reunification efforts made by the
department, including paternity testing for Joshua and a home study of Joshua’s
parents, who lived in Kansas. Although the paternity testing costs were paid by
Joshua’s parents and the home study was performed by a Kansas agency, both
these services, as well as the previously described reunification efforts, were
initiated by the department.
We conclude the State made reasonable efforts toward reunification. We
affirm the termination of Joshua’s parental rights to Natasha.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
