IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0864
Filed August 17, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R. and O.R.,
Minor Children,
C.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the permanency review order determining the
permanency goal was a relative placement. AFFIRMED.
Gina E. Verdoorn of Sporer & Flanagan, P.L.L.C., Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kayla A.J. Stratton of the Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for minor
children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals from the permanency-review order determining the
permanency goal in these juvenile proceedings is for her children, A.R., born in
2004, and O.R., born in 2006, to be placed in the guardianship and custody of
their maternal grandfather. She contends it is in the children’s best interest to be
returned to her care and she is an adequate parent. Upon our de novo review of
this family’s long history with services and the children’s need for stability and
permanency, we find no reason to disturb the juvenile court’s decision.
The mother has battled substance abuse issues for many years. The
department of human services (DHS) has investigated and found the mother to
have denied critical care to her children a number of times (in 2005, 2006, 2008,
and 2009). The children have been removed from their mother’s care at least
four times. Trial home visits have not been successful for the long term.
In November 2013, the mother’s oldest child, E.M., born in 2000, was
hospitalized as a result of inadequate medical treatment for his diabetes. Again,
the mother was found to have provided inadequate supervision, and the children
were removed from her care. On January 21, 2014, the children were found to
be children in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(c)(2) (2013) (“The failure of the child’s parent . . . to exercise a
reasonable degree of care in supervising the child.”). A dispositional order
continued out-of-home placement in foster care.
On November 5, 2014, the juvenile court entered a permanency order
granting the mother an extension of six months to achieve reunification. The
court found the “family is cooperating with services and the children are likely to
3
be returned within [six] months.” The children were returned to the mother’s care
on December 31, 2014, with supervision remaining with DHS. The mother was
to continue to provide negative drug screens and engage with services for herself
and the children. A family team meeting in February 2015 included a discussion
of closing the case. A March 27, 2015 DHS case progress report indicated the
mother
provides random drug screens as requested and provided a clean
UA this reporting period. [The mother] reports she graduated from
treatment at Zion [for] addressing her substance abuse needs. The
family is no longer attending family therapy at Mid-Iowa and has
been discharged. The children continue to do well in [the mother’s]
care.
On April 14, 2015, the juvenile court entered a permanency review order
finding,
[E.M.] is having some problems with school attendance and has
been charged with possession of drug paraphernalia; [A.R.]
appears to be doing well other than school attendance; [O.R.] is
having some struggles with peers at school; [A.R.] and [O.R.] have
had some school attendance issues; the children’s mother has
completed substance abuse treatment but DHS has some concerns
that she may be exercising poor judgment at times.
The court concluded its involvement was still required and the children remained
CINA.
On May 11, 2015, the State applied to modify the children’s placement,
asserting:
[A] known methamphetamine and marijuana user has been staying
at the family home with the consent of the mother; that this
individual was found hiding in a closet when he was arrested for a
probation violation; that the children have not been attending school
regularly; that the mother has missed drug screens.
4
In June and July 2015, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine.
She denied any use of methamphetamine.1 The children were removed from her
care by court order once again and, in August 2015, were placed with their
maternal grandfather.
A permanency review order entered on October 23, 2015, continued out-
of-home placement of the children.2 The court observed the mother was no
longer participating in services and was not attending substance-abuse support
groups. She also had not obtained employment. The juvenile court determined
“that the primary permanency goal for the children is relative placement.”
Guardianship and custody of A.R. and O.R. were placed with their maternal
grandfather, who resides in Minnesota. The mother did not appeal from that
ruling.
An April 2016 psychosocial evaluation was conducted after the mother’s
mental health provider expressed concerns about her intellectual abilities and her
possible need for vocational rehabilitation services. The evaluation report
indicates the mother’s intellectual functioning is “at the lower end of the ‘low
average’ range.” The report also indicates the mother may have reasoning
difficulties in stressful or demanding situations.
At the April 11, 2016 permanency review hearing DHS reported the
children’s school attendance improved greatly in their grandfather’s care. They
have daily phone contact and weekend visits with their mother because their
1
The mother consistently tests positive for amphetamine but takes a medication for
ADHD that can test as amphetamine.
2
The State had requested that E.M. be placed in the custody of the delinquency court,
which apparently occurred.
5
grandfather drives them to see her on weekends. The mother is allowed semi-
supervised daytime contact with the children and fully-supervised overnight
contact. The mother testified she wished to have the children returned and that
she had done all that had been requested of her. She also testified E.M., almost
sixteen years old, would be returning from a group home at the end of the
summer. She acknowledged that while she is able to care for the children when
she sees them on the weekend, conditions would be different if she had all three
children in her care full time. She believed she could do so. The guardian ad
litem agreed with the DHS recommendation that the children remain in their
grandfather’s custody and care under a guardianship.
On May 3, 2016, the juvenile court entered two orders: the first, a
permanency review order in which it found the children were doing well with their
grandfather, and the mother continued to be unable to provide a stable home for
herself and her children and lacked the ability to parent consistently. The court
found further that “the primary permanency goal for the children is relative
placement with grandfather, who should be made the children’s guardian.” The
second order transferred guardianship jurisdiction to the probate court.
We review a permanency order de novo. In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 32
(Iowa 2003). We give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings, but we are
not bound by them. Id.
Because we agree with the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions, and
because we further conclude these children need and deserve permanency after
these many years of uncertainty, we affirm. Further discussion is unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.