IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0778
Filed August 17, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF K.M., N.M., L.M., H.M., and L.M.,
Minor Children,
A.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott,
Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court’s adjudication of her children as
children in need of assistance, removal of the children, and disposition.
AFFIRMED.
Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office, Ames, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Meegan M. Langmaid-Keller of Keller Law Office, Altoona, for minor
children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court’s adjudication of her children as
children in need of assistance (CINA), removal of the children, and disposition.1
The mother asserts the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to
dismiss based on the failure to hold the adjudicatory hearing within sixty days of
filing of the petition, admitting exhibits over the mother’s objection, and denying
the mother’s motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing.2 We find no abuse of
discretion, and thus affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The department of human services (DHS) became involved with the family
in October 2015, after the children were left in the care of their daycare provider
for approximately two and one-half weeks and concerns were raised regarding
the mother’s suspected methamphetamine use.
Throughout DHS involvement, the mother was uncooperative with
services. DHS was never allowed access to assess the condition of the family
home, and the mother never submitted to drug testing.
The petition for adjudication was filed on October 6, 2015, and a pre-
adjudicatory hearing was held on October 22, 2015. The adjudicatory hearing
1
The father does not appeal.
2
The mother also asserts the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the motion
to dismiss made on the basis the father was not properly served, and she raises the
question: “Did the Court improperly consider the exhibits of evidence of the Appellant’s
failure to cooperate with the Department and proof of the two grounds found against the
Father solely?” However, the mother does not have standing to assert these claims.
See In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (“[The father] did not have
standing to assert that argument on her behalf in an effort to ultimately gain a benefit for
himself, that is, the reversal of the termination of his parental rights.”); see also In re
D.G., 704 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (determining one parent cannot raise
facts or legal arguments applicable only to the other parent).
3
was set for December 18, 2015, but was continued three times due to the lack of
service on the father. The mother did not object to the continuances.
The mother filed a motion to dismiss on March 24, 2016, asserting, among
other claims, the case should be dismissed for failure to hold the adjudicatory
hearing within sixty days of the filing of the CINA petition as required by Iowa
Court Rule 8.11. The adjudicatory hearing was held March 25, 2016.
On March 30, 2016, the children were adjudicated CINA as to the mother
under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2015).3 Among its concerns, the
juvenile court cited the mother’s suspected drug use, long periods of absence
from the home, and neglect of the children. The court stated:
Although evidence does not establish to the requisite degree
of certainty that [the mother] used specific illegal mood altering
drugs, evidence does establish she neglects the children for
unknown reasons of her own personal interests, which take her
away from home and the children. Her interests outside the family
interfere with caring for them adequately, both when away and
when she goes home.
....
The children have suffered harmful effects, and they remain
imminently likely to suffer harmful effects in the future, from the
failure of both [the mother] and [the father] to exercise a reasonable
degree of care in supervising them.
On April 13, 2016, the children were removed from the mother’s care and
placed in DHS custody. On April 27, 2016, the juvenile court entered a
dispositional order upholding the children’s CINA adjudication and maintaining
DHS custody. The mother appeals.
3
Defining a CINA as one “[w]ho has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful
effects as a result of . . . [t]he failure of the child’s parent . . . to exercise a reasonable
degree of care in supervising the child.” Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(c)(2).
4
II. Standard of Review.
We generally review CINA cases de novo, but review subsidiary rulings for
an abuse of discretion. In re L.R., No. 13-0713, 2013 WL 4504930, at *6 (Iowa
Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2013).
III. Analysis.
A. Motion to Dismiss. First, the mother asserts the juvenile court erred in
denying her motion to dismiss based on Iowa Court Rule 8.11. Rule 8.11 states,
“Failure to comply with this rule shall not result in automatic dismissal, but any
such failure may be urged as grounds for discretionary dismissal.” The juvenile
court properly considered the mother’s motion to dismiss, and determined that
good cause existed for the delay. The court found the delay reasonable in light
of the unsuccessful efforts to serve the father and the mother’s previous
agreement to the continuances.
We acknowledge the original date set for the hearing was outside of the
sixty days between the CINA petition and the adjudicatory hearing. We also
acknowledge the adjudicatory hearing was not actually held until about five and
one-half months after the petition was filed. Nonetheless, the mother did not
object to the continuances and cooperatively assisted in setting new dates for the
hearing prior to filing her motion to dismiss. The delay was caused by the efforts
to complete service on the father. We also note the mother asked for a
continuance of the adjudicatory hearing ultimately held on March 25, 2016. We
conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
B. Admission of Exhibits. The mother also contends the court erred in
admitting exhibits—two DHS reports—over her objection. The mother argues
5
that because her attorney was provided the exhibits shortly before the
adjudicatory hearing, she was not given sufficient notice or opportunity to be
heard, and the admission of the exhibits violated her due process right to know
the allegations against her.
In support of this contention, the mother cites to In re B.E., 875 N.W.2d
181 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). In B.E., the court determined the father’s due process
right to fair notice of the allegations against him was violated because the petition
“failed to identify the specific acts or omissions regarding the failure to exercise
reasonable care in supervising the child.” 875 N.W.2d at 187. Oppositely, in this
case, the petition adequately included the specific acts and omissions comprising
the mother’s failure to exercise reasonable care in supervising her children.
Regardless of the mother’s late notice of the two exhibits in question, she was
more than adequately informed of the specific allegations against her. Thus, we
find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s admission of the exhibits.
Additionally, the exhibits were not prejudicial to the mother because other
evidence in the record supported adjudication.
C. Motion to Continue. Last, the mother argues the juvenile court abused
its discretion in denying her motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing, which
was made at the time the hearing was set to begin. Counsel made the motion to
continue because the mother was not present at the time of the hearing. The
court denied the motion to continue. Considering the number of continuances
already granted and the late request for a continuance—made the day of the
hearing—the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to continue
based upon the mother’s failure to appear at the adjudicatory hearing.
6
Upon our de novo review of the record, we find the juvenile court did not
abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.