IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A.H. AND A.W., Minor Children, A.L.H., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-884 / 07-1708
Filed November 29, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A.H. AND A.W.,
Minor Children,
A.L.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three children.
AFFIRMED.
John Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
David Nadler, Cedar Rapids, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
2
BAKER, J.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three children,
claiming the State failed to provide reasonable efforts toward reunification. The
father failed to preserve the issue for appellate review, and the services provided
by the State were reasonable under the circumstances of the case. We affirm.
I. Background and Facts
Amy was the mother of three daughters, A.P., born in June 1991, Al.H.,
born in June 1992, and Au.H., born in September 1994, and one son, A.W., born
in December 1995. Amy died of a drug overdose in August 2006.
Timothy is the father of A.P., and Alan is the father of the other three
children. The children were first adjudicated to be children in need of assistance
(CINA) in 1995, and after six months in foster care were returned to Amy’s care.
In May 2004, they again came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS), when they were removed from Amy’s home due to her drug use.
At that time, all four children were placed with Alan and his wife. In August 2004,
they were again adjudicated to be CINA pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.2(6)(c)(1) and (2), and 232.2(6)(n) (2003).
On August 24, 2005, the children were removed from Alan’s home and
placed in foster family care due to allegations of Alan’s lascivious acts with his
older daughter, including propositioning her to engage in sexual relations with
him. Alan was arrested on September 1, 2005, and charged with lascivious acts
with a child. In March 2006, Alan’s younger daughter reported that she had been
abused by him. The girls testified at Alan’s criminal trial in January 2007. Alan
3
was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to twenty-five
years in prison. The lascivious acts with a child charges are still pending.
At the time the children were removed from Alan’s custody, they were
placed together with a foster family, where they currently reside. They have
flourished in the foster home. The family has indicated a desire to adopt all four
of the children. The children have indicated a desire to remain together, and to
live “normal” lives, away from the involvement of DHS, and to be adopted by their
foster family. Alan’s children have stated they do not want to be returned to his
care or to have contact with him.
In September 2005, DHS stated that visits would not be arranged between
Alan and the children until he became involved in sexual abuse treatment. Alan
has not had visitation with the children since that time. At a May 2006 review
hearing, where Alan appeared by counsel, he failed to request additional
services or assistance. In August 2006, DHS reported that, because Alan had
failed to seek treatment for his sexual abuse issues, the department was not
providing visitation. Alan was not present for the August 18, 2006 hearing, where
the permanency goal was changed from reunification with a parent to another
planned living arrangement. Following an August 20, 2007 trial, the district court
terminated Alan’s parental rights to Al.H., Au.H., and A.W. pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (j). Timothy’s parental rights to A.P. were also
terminated, although he is not a party to this appeal.
4
II. Merits
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991).
Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best
interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Alan contends the State failed to provide reasonable efforts toward
reunification. “The State must make reasonable efforts to provide services to a
parent before termination proceedings may be instituted.”
In re C.H., 652
N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002) (citing Iowa Code §§ 232.102(7), (10)(a) (1999);
C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492-93). “[I]f a parent fails to request other services at the
proper time, the parent waives the issue and may not later challenge it at the
termination proceeding.” Id. at 148 (citations omitted). There is nothing in the
record to indicate Alan requested additional services prior to the termination
hearing. Because he failed to raise the issue of reasonable efforts prior to the
termination hearing, Alan’s contention that the State failed to provide reasonable
services to reunify him with the children was not preserved for appellate review.
We therefore need not consider his argument on appeal.
Were we to consider his argument, we would reject it. What constitutes
reasonable services necessarily varies based upon the unique requirements of
each case.
C.H., 652 N.W.2d at 147. Alan has not sought a psychological
evaluation or treatment for his sexual abuse and was not allowed visitation with
his children until he did so. Based upon the nature of his actions against his
daughters, the State’s services were reasonable. In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522,
525 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (“The services required to be supplied an incarcerated
parent, as with any other parent, are only those that are reasonable under the
5
circumstances.”); In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 692 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (noting
an incarcerated parent “cannot fault DHS for being unable to provide him
additional services when his own actions prevented him from taking advantage of
them”). Further, there is no indication what services might have been provided or
how those services might have changed the outcome of this case. We agree
with the district court that “no amount of services would keep these children safe
in their father’s home.”
The children are flourishing in their new foster home. Their foster family
wants to adopt all four of them, and they want to remain together and be adopted
by the family. These children deserve their wish—to live “normal” lives. It is in
their best interests to affirm the termination.
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.
