IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1678
Filed January 11, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF C.C.,
Minor child,
W.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the district court’s transfer of her child from her care to
the custody of the department of human services. AFFIRMED.
J. David Zimmerman, Clinton, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan & Rolfes, Clinton, guardian ad litem
for minor child.
Neill A. Kroeger, LeClaire, attorney for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the district court’s modification of a dispositional order,
the effect of which was to transfer her child from her care to the custody of the
department of human services.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
A thirteen-year-old child who lived with his mother exhibited aggressive
and out-of-control behaviors at school and at home. The department determined
he was “in need of treatment to cure or alleviate serious mental illness” and the
mother was “unwilling to provide such treatment.”
The State filed a child-in-need-of-assistance petition. The child’s guardian
ad litem found the child “had not been attending school for some time” and “was
exhibiting very inappropriate and aggressive behaviors” when he attended
school. He also reported that the child might “have a history of being abusive
towards his mother.”
The district court adjudicated the child in need of assistance, reasoning
the mother needed help in meeting his needs. The court did not remove the child
from her custody.
A month after the adjudication, the guardian ad litem reported “there [was]
a significant level of risk involved in the current placement,” given the child’s “lack
of self-control.” Nonetheless, he declined to recommend immediate removal
because the mother was complying with services and had executed a voluntary
safety plan that required constant supervision of the child. The district court
entered a dispositional order continuing placement with the mother subject to
oversight by the department.
3
Within two and one-half months, the State moved to modify the order,
citing a report from the department social worker overseeing the case that she
saw the child at a grocery store without his mother or another adult. According to
the social worker, the child recognized her and told her his mother was in the car.
When she approached the car and reminded the mother of the safety plan, the
mother failed to acknowledge her violation. In light of this incident and others,
the guardian ad litem reported he was “increasingly less optimistic about [the
mother’s] ability to care for [the child] on her own.”
Following a hearing on the modification motion, the district court ordered
custody of the child transferred to the department for placement at a residential
treatment facility.
On appeal, the mother contends the legal requirements for transfer of the
child were not satisfied. Those requirements are set forth in Iowa Code section
232.103(4) (2015), which authorizes a court to modify a dispositional order if
“[t]he purposes of the order cannot reasonably be accomplished” or if “[t]he
efforts made to effect the purposes of the order have been unsuccessful and
other options to effect the purposes of the order are not available.” Iowa Code
§ 232.103(4)(b), (c). In addition, our precedent requires a showing of “a material
and substantial change in circumstances.” In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991); cf. In re M.M., No. 16-0548, 2016 WL 4036246, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App.
July 27, 2016) (concluding “the juvenile court need not find a substantial change
in circumstances as a prerequisite to modification of a dispositional order”). We
are persuaded these requirements were satisfied.
4
At the modification hearing in September 2016, the department’s social
worker recommended a higher level of care for the child “due to several
occurrences of his mother not being able to meet his safety needs.” She
expressed concern that the mother was “not able to see [the child’s] inability to
self-protect and his [in]ability to self-regulate, and le[ft] [the child] alone.” She
also explained that the child had not been going to school since “approximately
two and a half weeks into the school year” because of his aggressive behaviors,
manifested by spitting, hitting, kicking, and cursing at staff. The social worker
stated space was available at a residential facility on the Monday following the
hearing and the facility “would be able to meet not only his behavioral but his
academic needs.”
Based on the mother’s violation of the safety plan and her inability to
facilitate school attendance, we conclude the purposes of the dispositional order
could no longer be served and there existed a material and substantial change of
circumstances warranting modification of the dispositional order. While the
mother minimized her violation and insisted she could provide the care the child
required, the child’s behavior at school suggests otherwise.
We recognize the mother and child share a close bond. The social worker
acknowledged the bond and the child told the district court he wished to stay with
his mother. But the district court had to balance the bond against the child’s
safety. We conclude the department’s commitment to facilitate visitation at the
residential facility would preserve the bond while at the same time ensuring the
child’s well-being and academic development.
5
On our de novo review, we affirm the district court’s modification of the
dispositional order.
AFFIRMED.