In the Interest of A.M. and K.M., Minor Children ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1280
Filed December 15, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF A.M. and K.M.,
Minor Children,
J.M. and S.M.,
Intervenors/Appellants.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker,
District Associate Judge.
Following termination of their son’s parental rights, the paternal
grandparents appeal the district court order that closed the child-in-need-of-
assistance proceedings. AFFIRMED.
Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines for
intervenors/appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General.
Penny Beth Reimer, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
Following termination of their son’s parental rights, the paternal
grandparents who intervened in the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)
proceedings appeal the district court decision closing the CINA case after the
minor children were adopted by their maternal grandmother. We find the court
properly closed the CINA proceedings. The paternal grandparents were not
entitled to notice of the adoption proceedings, and therefore a lack of notice to the
paternal grandparents is not a reason to keep the CINA proceedings open. We
affirm the decision of the district court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
The intervenors are the parents of J.M., an adult male. J.M. is the father of
A.M., born in 2012, and K.M., born in 2014. In 2019, the father murdered the
children’s mother in her home. The children were in the home at the time of the
murder. The father was incarcerated, and A.M. and K.M., along with the mother’s
third child, S.M., born in 2016, were placed in the care of the maternal
grandmother.1 All three children have remained with the maternal grandmother
since their mother’s death. A June 2019 adjudication order formally placed the
children in the care of the maternal grandmother under the supervision of the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS).
On July 15, the paternal grandparents filed an appearance in the CINA
proceedings. They moved to intervene and asked to have the children placed in
1 S.M. is not the biological child of J.M.
3
their care. The district court granted the motion to intervene. On August 15, the
maternal grandmother moved to intervene. This motion was also granted.
In the CINA disposition order the juvenile court found:
The testimony and evidence proves these children are trauma
bound. In just two months the children have experienced
unimaginable pain: two of the children were sexually abused; all
three of the children horrifically lost their mother, likely at the hands
of [the father]. Separating these children under these circumstances
is NOT in their best interests.
The court determined it would not be in the children’s best interests to move them
from the care of the maternal grandmother to the paternal grandparents. The court
found the children were in familiar surroundings with the maternal grandmother,
who lived next door to their former home. The court found it would be detrimental
to the children to move to a new home and new school district. 2 The court was
also concerned because the paternal grandmother accepted telephone calls from
the father while the children were present.
The paternal grandparents filed a motion for a custody evaluation. The
request was denied by the district court. On January 20, 2020, a review order
continued the children’s placement with the maternal grandmother. The paternal
grandparents were granted visitation at the discretion of DHS.
The issue of the placement of the children was raised again in a
permanency review hearing in June. On July 10, the district court ruled the children
should remain with the maternal grandmother under the supervision of DHS. The
2It would also be detrimental for A.M. and K.M. to be separated from their sibling
S.M. The paternal grandparents are not biologically related to S.M.
4
court also stated, “Temporary legal custody of the children shall be with the [DHS]
for purposes of adoption.”3
The father’s parental rights were terminated in July. See In re A.M., No. 20-
1005, 2020 WL 7021573, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2020). The termination
was affirmed on appeal. Id. at *4.
On June 2, 2021, the State filed a motion requesting the closure of the CINA
proceedings. The paternal grandparents resisted the State’s motion. The paternal
grandparents’ motion outlined that they had inquired whether an adoption petition
was filed and “[i]t came to our attention today that a private adoption has indeed
been filed and the final hearing is tomorrow morning.” The paternal grandparents
asserted they were entitled to notice of the adoption proceedings and had the right
to intervene in those proceedings. They pointed out they were relatives of the
children and that a home study found they were suitable parties to adopt the
children.
On June 3, the district court entered an order closing the CINA proceedings.
The court also entered an order stating the adoption was completed and that the
paternal grandparents’ motion claiming they should have received notice of the
adoption proceedings was moot. The paternal grandparents filed a motion under
Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). The district court denied the motion, finding,
“It is contrary to the best interests of the children to upset the adoption decree and
3 The paternal grandparents appealed the district court’s order. The Iowa Supreme
Court determined the matter should be treated as an application for an
interlocutory appeal and denied the application. Procedendo issued on
September 30, 2020.
5
permanency review order.” The paternal grandparents appeal the district court
orders.
II. Standard of Review
The juvenile court’s decisions in CINA proceedings are reviewed de novo.
In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017). We are not bound by the factual
findings of the juvenile court, but we give weight to those findings. In re J.S., 846
N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014). The court’s “determinations must be based upon clear
and convincing evidence.” Id. at 41. Our primary consideration is the best interests
of the children. In re D.S., 563 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
III. Discussion
The paternal grandparents claim the district court should not have closed
the CINA proceedings. The closure of CINA proceedings is governed by Iowa
Code section 232.103(4) (2019):
The court may modify a dispositional order, vacate and
substitute a dispositional order, or terminate a dispositional order and
release the child if the court finds that any of the following
circumstances exist:
a. The purposes of the order have been accomplished and the
child is no longer in need of supervision, care, or treatment.
b. The purposes of the order cannot reasonably be
accomplished.
c. The 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.
d. The purposes of the order have been sufficiently
accomplished and the continuation of supervision, care, or treatment
is unjustified or unwarranted.
CINA proceedings may be closed if the court finds the purposes of the CINA
proceedings have been accomplished and the child is no longer in need of the
court’s supervision. Iowa Code § 232.103(4)(a); see also In re L.F., No. 21-0002,
6
2021 WL 1400086, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021) (finding a CINA action
should not be dismissed because “the purposes of the CINA adjudication have not
been accomplished and [the child] remains in need of juvenile court supervision”).
The paternal grandparents do not dispute whether the children need
continuing supervision by the court. They contend the CINA proceedings should
not be closed because the parties to the proceedings should be required to give
them notice of the adoption proceedings and the paternal grandparents should be
given consideration in the determination of which family should adopt the children.
Under section 232.103(4), the failure of the parties in a CINA proceeding to
give notice of a different proceeding is not a reason to keep the CINA proceeding
open. The arguments raised by the paternal grandparents do not relate to the
factors in section 232.103(4). See In re D.D., 955 N.W.2d 186, 195 (Iowa 2021)
(noting the purpose of section 232.103(4) is to terminate CINA proceedings when
continuation of “supervision, care, or treatment” of children is no longer needed).
Furthermore, the paternal grandparents are not parties entitled to notice of
the adoption proceedings under section 600.11(2)(a).4 See In re Adoption of K.T.,
4The parties who must receive notice of an adoption petition are listed in section
600.11(2)(a):
(1) A guardian, guardian ad litem if appointed for the adoption
proceedings, and custodian of, and a person in a parent-child
relationship with the person to be adopted. This subparagraph does
not require notice to be given to a person whose parental rights have
been terminated with regard to the person to be adopted.
(2) The person to be adopted who is an adult.
(3) Any person who is designated to make an investigation
and report under section 600.8.
(4) Any other person who is required to consent under section
600.7.
(5) A person who has been granted visitation rights with the
child to be adopted pursuant to section 600C.1.
7
497 N.W.2d 163, 165 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (noting grandparents were not entitled
to notice under section 600.11(2) and stating, “We are unable to conclude the
grandparents were entitled to notice of the adoption petition”); In re N.S., No. 08-
1080, 2009 WL 398381, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2009) (“Those who are not
specifically listed in section 600.11(2) are not entitled to notice of the adoption
hearing . . . .”); but see In re T.D., No. 09-1144, 2010 WL 624251, at *4 (Iowa Ct.
App. Feb. 24, 2010) (finding grandparents were entitled to notice of an adoption
petition based on the language of a court order from a different state). The paternal
grandparents were not entitled to notice. See K.T., 497 N.W.2d at 165.
Accordingly, the failure to provide notice is not a reason to keep the CINA
proceedings open. We conclude the district court properly ruled the CINA
proceedings concerning the children could be closed.
AFFIRMED.
(6) A person who is ordered to pay support or a postsecondary
education subsidy pursuant to section 598.21F, or chapter 234,
252A, 252C, 252F, 598, 600B, or any other chapter of the Code, for
a person eighteen years of age or older who is being adopted by a
stepparent, and the support order or order requires payment of
support or postsecondary education subsidy for any period of time
after the child reaches eighteen years of age.
The paternal grandparents had visitation with the children, but this visitation was
through the CINA proceedings, not a grandparent-visitation order under section
600C.1. See Iowa Code § 600.11(2)(a)(5).