In the Interest of C.R., Minor Child ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1216
Filed February 3, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF C.R.,
Minor Child,
A.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt,
Judge.
A mother appeals the dispositional order affirming her child to be in need of
assistance. AFFIRMED.
Christina M. Shriver, Waterloo, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Tammy L. Banning of the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by May, P.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021).
2
VOGEL, Senior Judge.
The mother of C.R., born in 2007, appeals from the dispositional order that
affirmed her child was in need of assistance (CINA). “We review CINA
proceedings de novo.” In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014).
To fully understand the mother’s appeal, we begin by detailing the material
facts and procedural history. C.R. had been staying with her maternal
grandmother for several months because of the mother’s drug use and
homelessness. On February 29, 2020, the mother went to the grandmother’s
home and soon left with C.R. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
was contacted, and an emergency removal order was secured on March 2. The
next day, C.R. was located and returned to her grandmother’s home, where she
has remained.
On March 4, a CINA petition was filed under Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(c)(2) (2020), alleging C.R. “has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer
harmful effects as a result of the failure of [her mother] to exercise a reasonable
degree of care in supervising [C.R.]” On the same day, the mother submitted to a
hair-stat drug test.
On March 10, the temporary removal came on for hearing, which included
testimony by the mother denying any drug use in the past fourteen years. The
court held the record open to allow the results of the mother’s drug test to be
completed and admitted into the record. The completed report revealed the
mother tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine.
On March 24, the court found returning C.R. to the mother would place her
in imminent danger and was therefore contrary to her welfare.
3
On April 1, the mother’s attorney filed a stipulation stating he “received a
letter from his client indicating that she agrees that the Juvenile is a Child in Need
of Assistance as alleged in the Petition.” In the same filing, the attorney also
moved to cancel the adjudicatory hearing and requested the case be scheduled
for a dispositional hearing. A DHS child abuse assessment summary filed on April
9 was founded against the mother for “dangerous substances,” with C.R. as the
victim.
On April 10, after reviewing the testimony and record from the temporary
hearing, the stipulation, the drug test results, and the remaining court file, the
juvenile court found C.R. to be in need of assistance as alleged. It ordered the
continued out-of-home placement for C.R. and detailed services to be provided to
the mother. On June 5, finding a breakdown in communication between the
mother and her attorney, the court appointed another attorney to represent the
mother.
The case came on for disposition on July 1 via a telephonic hearing. The
juvenile court heard testimony from the mother and the DHS worker, and the court
admitted the most recent reports compiled by DHS. The court found DHS offered
reasonable services to promote reunification of C.R. with her mother, but the
mother had not completed the substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations or
complied with any recommendations. It ordered the continued placement of C.R.
with her grandmother and directed the continuation of offered services.
The mother appeals from that order, arguing the adjudication was entered
in error. She claims the court should have required her signature on the stipulation
to the adjudication to be assured it “was knowingly and voluntarily entered,” and
she adds an undeveloped assertion her then-counsel was ineffective. But on our
4
review of the full transcript of the dispositional hearing, the mother makes no such
claims. Had she wanted to protest the adjudication, the dispositional hearing was
the time and place to do so. A CINA proceeding initially consists of two parts: the
adjudication and disposition. In re Long, 313 N.W.2d 473, 475 (Iowa 1981)
(holding an order of adjudication is not final until disposition). Therefore, the
appeal is of the whole, and failure to challenge an issue—including procedural or
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims—at the earliest opportunity waives the
claim on appeal. In re C.M., 652 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 2002). There is nothing
in the transcript of the dispositional hearing suggesting a challenge to the entry of
the underlying adjudication. At disposition, the juvenile court was not alerted to
any procedural flaw in the adjudication and thus did not consider any such
challenge. Therefore, the claimed error the mother now raises is not preserved for
our review.
Next the mother asserts the juvenile court should have returned C.R. to her
care rather than continuing her placement with her grandmother. However, the
testimony and information offered to the juvenile court say otherwise. The pre-
dispositional hearing report compiled by DHS summarized the mother’s progress
towards reunification as: “[The mother] is in the beginning stages of her treatment
and has a history of mental health issues, as well as substance use issues she is
not currently recognizing.” It also noted C.R. “is tired of her mother’s instability and
also concerned about the places her mother takes her and stays.” C.R. is safe in
the care of her grandmother and has an improved sense of stability. See In re
K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001) (“As in all juvenile proceedings, our
fundamental concern is the best interests of the child.”); see also In re J.E., 723
N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (recognizing “a
5
child’s safety and his or her need for a permanent home as the defining elements
in a child’s best interests”). We affirm the adjudication and disposition.
AFFIRMED.