Opinion
No. 2-122 / 01-1523.
Filed July 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, LARRY J. EISENHAUER, Judge, and JOE SMITH, District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son and daughter. AFFIRMED.
Pamela Vandel, Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Elias Gastelo, Jr., Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Mark Taylor, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Victoria Meade, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ. EISENHAUER, J. takes no part.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son and daughter. The parents claim the Department of Human Services failed to accommodate their native Chatino language and termination was not in the children's best interests. We affirm.
I . Background Facts and Proceedings
The mother and father have two children, Jose and Brenda. Both mother and father grew up in Mexico and speak no English. Their native language is Chatino.
Chatino is the language spoken by Middle American Indians living in the southwestern portion of Oaxaca state in southern Mexico. See www.brittanica.com; azteca.net/aztec/lang.html.
Jose was born in 1999 with kidney problems that require medication and a special formula. Brenda was born prematurely in 2000 with severe disabilities, including heart, pulmonary, and eye problems. She remained hospitalized for three months. At the time of discharge, medical personnel expressed concern that her parents would be unable to attend to her special needs. They also reported that the parents had rarely visited the child.
The Department of Human Services (Department) sought to have both Brenda and Jose removed from their parents' care. The district court granted the request and the children were placed in foster care. Several days later, the court entered an order for a Spanish interpreter. The order also made reference to the Chatino language and stated, "if the interpreter is unable to provide the above services, the Court is to be notified immediately."
Ultimately, the State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents to both children. The juvenile court granted the petition as to Brenda pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c) (1999) (physical or sexual abuse or neglect and condition persists despite receipt of services), (d) (absence of significant and meaningful contact), and (g) (child cannot be returned to home), and as to Jose pursuant to section 232.116(1)(g). The parents appealed. Our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
II . Interpreter Services
Both parents challenge the termination order on the ground they were not provided interpreter services in their native language of Chatino. The father maintains this omission amounted to a violation of constitutional magnitude. Additionally, both parents argue the absence of Chatino translations violated the Department's reasonable efforts mandate. See Iowa Code § 232.102(7) and (10)(a); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492-93 (Iowa 2000). The State counters that neither party preserved error.
Addressing the error preservation argument first, we agree with the State's assertion that issues, including constitutional issues, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. In re Voeltz, 271 N.W.2d 719, 722 (Iowa 1978); In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The parents did not ask the district court for a Chatino interpreter. In fact, their attorneys made professional statements that their clients understood the nature of the proceedings as translated in Spanish. Neither parent filed any post trial motions addressing the issue. Therefore, the parents did not preserve error on their claim that they were entitled to a Chatino rather than a Spanish interpreter. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493-94; cf. Thongvanh v. State, 494 N.W.2d 679, 681-82 (Iowa 1993) (stating "[o]nly if the defendant makes any difficulty with the interpreter known to the court can the judge take corrective measures."); Valladares v. United States, 871 F.2d 1564, 1566 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting appellant made no objection at trial to the adequacy of his interpreter).
Despite our conclusion that the parents have not preserved error on their request for a Chatino interpreter, we may review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the translation services provided by the Department as part of its reasonable efforts mandate. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492-93. Based on the record before us, we do not find a violation of this mandate.
The mother advised the Department that her native language was Chatino and that she wished to have an interpreter who spoke the language. In response, a Department supervisor agreed to seek a postponement of the court hearings until "we found an individual who could speak the correct dialect, so we could make certain that [the mother] understood the proceedings dealing with her children." The supervisor was subsequently notified by a coordinator of Latino services that she "had met back at the Court with the proper interpreter and had spoken with [the mother] and her attorney and they agreed to accept the Removal and work with services."
At no time did the mother suggest that the court interpreter's translations were inadequate or that she did not understand the Spanish translators used by the Department to implement services. In fact, the case plans and progress notes suggest just the opposite. A caseworker noted that the mother had conversed with the worker and a translator "at great length" days before the mother mentioned she was a native Chatino speaker. Over the course of several months, the mother communicated in Spanish with Department personnel and several service providers, advising them of the reasons she missed appointments, her transportation needs, her income and job situation, and her husband's behavior toward her. When the mother was advised by a Spanish translator that she would have to assure the Department she would not miss visitation, she responded that she understood. She also did not object or complain of a lack of understanding when the Department translated written medical instructions into Spanish.
The Department also communicated with the father in Spanish, without objection. A translator advised him of the progress of the case and of relevant visitation and medical appointments. The father did not at any time indicate that the translations were inadequate.
Most notably, both parents underwent comprehensive clinical assessments in Spanish. The clinical psychologist noted that both parties "understood Spanish to a moderate to good degree," despite the fact that they were more fluent in Chatino. She attributed their parenting inadequacies more to low intellectual functioning than a language barrier.
On this record, we conclude that the Department's Spanish translation services were in compliance with its reasonable efforts mandate.
III. Statutory Grounds
The parents also challenge the substantive grounds for termination. Where the juvenile court relies on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm if we find evidence supporting any one of the grounds. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Both parents' rights were terminated as to both children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) (child cannot be returned to home). Clear and convincing evidence supports this ground for termination. The children had medical conditions that professionals believed could not be adequately addressed by the parents. Additionally, the father had domestically abused the mother, used alcohol to excess, and lacked control over his temper. In light of this evidence, we conclude the children could not be returned to the parents.
IV. Best Interests
Both parents also argue termination was not in the children's best interests. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981). We recognize the parents were bonded with Jose. Nevertheless, we agree with the juvenile court that the combination of factors cited above override that bond. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's termination of the parents' rights to Jose and Brenda.
AFFIRMED.