Case Title: In Interest of Robbins

Citation: 230 N.W.2d 489

Docket Number: 2-57760

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1975-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
230 N.W.2d 489 (1975) In the Interest of Mark ROBBINS et al., Kester Robbins and Donna Robbins, Appellants. No. 2-57760. Supreme Court of Iowa. June 25, 1975. *490 R. Michael Sweesy, Mason City, for appellants. Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Lorna Lawhead Williams, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael P. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Phillip N. Norland, County Atty., for appellee State of Iowa. John H. Greve, Northwood, for appellee children. Heard by MOORE, C. J., and MASON, REES, HARRIS and McCORMICK, JJ. McCORMICK, Justice. This is an appeal by the parents from a trial court decree terminating the parent-child relationship between them and their four children. We affirm the trial court. The children involved are Mark, age 10, Michael, age 9, Donald, age 7, and Kimberly, age 3. The parents are Kester and Donna Robbins. Their marriage had been *491 dissolved by the time the termination decree was entered, although Kester continued to reside with Donna. Their home is in Kensett, in Worth County. Two grounds for termination were alleged in the petition. One ground was an alleged substantial, continuous or repeated refusal of the parents to give the children necessary parental care and protection. § 232.41(2)(b), The Code. The other ground was an apparent attempt to paraphrase § 232.41(2)(d), The Code, which authorizes termination when parents are shown to be unfit by reason of certain conduct found by the court to be detrimental to the physical or mental health or morals of their children. The trial court terminated the parental relationship on the first ground and on a ground not alleged in the petition, a finding under § 232.41(2)(e), The Code, "That following an adjudication of neglect or dependency, reasonable efforts under the direction of the court have failed to correct the conditions leading to the termination." This ground was not alleged by the State even though the trial court did make a finding the children were neglected and dependent after the first of the three hearings in the case. I. The parents contend they were denied due process of law under Amendment 14, United States Constitution, when the court found a basis for termination not alleged in the petition and of which they had no written notice. It is a denial of due process to adjudicate a termination of parental rights on a ground of which the children and parents have not had proper notice. In re Meyer, 204 N.W.2d 625 (Iowa 1973), and citations. Therefore, we agree with the parents that, even if established in the evidence, the statutory ground under § 232.41(2)(e) may not serve as a basis for affirmance of the trial court's decree. II. We find it unnecessary to decide whether the second ground alleged in the petition properly stated a basis for termination under § 232.41(2)(d), which, although not relied on by the trial court, would have justified termination. We think the controlling question is whether the evidence is sufficient to support termination based on the pleaded ground relied on by the trial court, a substantial and continuous or repeated refusal by the parents to give the children necessary care and protection. We review the evidence de novo. General principles applicable to our review are summarized in In Interest of Kester, 228 N.W.2d 107, 109 (Iowa 1975), and need not be repeated here. The three trial court hearings in this case produced 475 pages of transcript and numerous exhibits. The hearings were held July 23, 1973, June 24, 1974, and September 24, 1974. The evidence in the first hearing showed the family first came to the attention of social services authorities in 1969 when Donna's mother, Grace Helmich, requested assistance for Donna from the Homemaker Health Aide Service. The homemaker service exists to provide guidance in household management. However, the homemakers sent to the Robbins home found they were doing maid service. Donna listened to them but refused to follow either their example or advice. She let them clean house and fix meals for her. This service continued for three years, including more than 1000 hours of work. Reports were prepared by the workers after each visit. The reports of three homemakers were received in evidence. We agree with and adopt the trial court's characterization of these reports: The family has received Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) benefits since shortly after the homemaker service began. Kester was physically capable of working but did not hold jobs for more than a few weeks or months at a time. He refused to share his earnings with his family. When he was home he refused to assist with household tasks and insisted on being waited on by Donna. The trial court accurately described Kester as "a brutal, ignorant and insensitive person incapable of giving guidance to his children." The evidence showed Donna had a high school education and one year of business school. She tested in the normal range of intelligence. She has a thyroid condition for which she takes medication. She has taken a great many other pills also. On two occasions she took an overdose of sleeping pills. As of the time of the first hearing, the deplorable home conditions had already harmed the children. Mark's school work suffered. He repeated kindergarten and spent time in special education. He had a record of absenteeism because of his parents' failure to get him to school. Psychological testing revealed he was emotionally disturbed. Since 1971 he had been with his maternal grandparents. Despite the fact conditions in that home were little better, he showed some improvement after moving there. Michael, Donald, and Kimberly remained with the parents. They were anxious, disturbed, *493 love-starved children, already showing the effects of their deplorable environment. The trial court concluded: The court held the evidence would justify termination but elected instead to proceed under § 232.47, The Code. That provision authorized the court to find the children neglected and dependent. After making such finding the court continued the proceeding for six months, leaving the children in their respective homes under supervision of the Worth County Department of Social Services. Monthly reports were ordered. After the second hearing, held in June 1974, 11 months after the first, the trial court filed findings of fact noting the dissolution of the parents' marriage, but adding that the dissolution had not seriously changed the parental relationship because Kester continued to spend most nights in the home. Home conditions were still poor, but some slight improvement was found. The children were doing better in school. The court continued the protective supervision by the department of social services and ordered the juvenile probation officer to assist in checking home conditions. After the court received additional reports, the third hearing was held. After that hearing the trial court made the following findings of fact: The parents do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to require termination of Kester's parental rights on the ground of his substantial and continuous refusal to care for and protect the children. The evidence establishes that his parental rights should be terminated on that ground. In Interest of Kester, supra; Re Interests of Morrison Children v. State, 259 Iowa 301, 144 N.W.2d 97 (1966). The parents do attack the sufficiency of evidence to justify termination of Donna's parental rights on that ground. In doing so they have seized upon the trial court's finding in the termination decree that Donna "does the best she can, but appears either not to know what should be done in caring for her household and children, or is incapable of performing such duties." They argue Donna's failure to give the children necessary care and protection results from incapacity and not a "refusal" as required by the statute. We do not agree. We believe the trial court was kinder to Donna than the record justifies, and the parents have put a narrower interpretation on the ground of termination than the statute justifies. The record shows Donna to be a person with average abilities. Her physical weakness results in part from a self-induced drug dependency. Psychological testing reveals she suffers from various defects of personality. They constitute incapacity only in the sense they are deeply ingrained and unlikely to change. Donna has a weak will, but she has a will nevertheless. She makes voluntary choices. She is capable of arising at a reasonable hour in the morning; she chooses to sleep until later. She is capable of preparing meals; she prefers not to do so. She is capable of sweeping the floor and washing dishes; she elects not to do so. She knows how to wash and mend clothes; she decides not to do so. She knows Kester is a bad influence on her and the children; she keeps him in the home. This is not a case like In re McDonald, 201 N.W.2d 447 (Iowa 1972), where the mother was incapable of making such choices. We do not think the statute requires proof of a deliberate ultimate decision by the parent not to care for the children. We think the refusal may consist, as it does in this case, in a series of deliberate choices made by the parent which establish a pattern of living destructive to the welfare of the children. A failure of a parent to change such a pattern of behavior, when the parent has the capacity to make different decisions in these routine daily affairs, is a refusal to provide for the children's needs. In this sense, as found by the trial court, Donna has substantially, continuously, and repeatedly refused to give the children necessary parental care and attention. Her weaknesses entitled her to understanding and compassion, but they do not make her conduct involuntary. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to require termination of the parent-child relationship on this ground. III. The parents raise two other issues. One is urged for the first time on appeal; The other is an effort to assert purported rights of the grandparents. The first is raised too late. Schnabel v. Display Service, Inc., 219 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 1974). The other does not affect the parents' rights and cannot be asserted by them. Hagenson v. United Telephone Company of Iowa, 209 N.W.2d 76, 81 (Iowa 1973). Affirmed.