In the Interest of D.C., Minor Child ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1756
Filed December 19, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF D.C.,
Minor Child,
E.A., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, District
Associate Judge.
The mother appeals the transfer of guardianship and custody of her child.
AFFIRMED.
Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Lori J. Kieffer-Garrison, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
The mother appeals the permanency order, which transferred guardianship
and custody of her child, D.C., to the child’s maternal grandparents. First, she
argues the district court failed to account for the progress she has made. Second,
she argues the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has failed to make
reasonable efforts toward reunification.
DHS first took notice of this family on May 10, 2017, when D.C.’s school
reported abuse injuries to the child. D.C., born in January 2011, had puffiness to
one eye, scratches on his neck, and bruises on his ear and arm. A DHS worker
went to the school and spoke with D.C., who reported his mother’s paramour had
caused the injuries and has injured D.C., his older sister, and his mother on various
occasions.1 On May 22, D.C. and his sister were removed from the mother’s care
and placed in the care of their maternal grandparents.
D.C. and his sister were adjudicated as children in need of assistance
(CINA) on July 28, 2017. DHS reported the mother would not acknowledge the
paramour harmed the children and refused to engage in therapy to address her
own issues. After more than one year of offered services, the children and the
mother’s family members reported the mother continued the relationship with the
paramour. A permanency hearing was held on August 8, 2018. Following the
hearing, the district court ordered guardianship and custody of D.C. be transferred
to D.C.’s maternal grandparents.2
1
D.C.’s biological father is deceased. The mother’s paramour is alleged to be the
biological father of D.C.’s sister, but a paternity test was never performed.
2
D.C.’s sister was returned to the mother’s custody after the permanency hearing. The
district court noted in its order that “[s]he will be turning 15 in September and is old enough
3
“We review a permanency order de novo.” In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 32
(Iowa 2003). The mother first argues the transfer of guardianship was not justified
due to her progress. She asserts, “Based on the return of the child’s sibling and
discharge of proceedings, it is clear that the Court made a determination in the
sibling case that the mother had made sufficient progress in case plan goals for
the return of the sibling and safe case closure for the sibling.” “Even though a
mother may be able to parent some of her children does not necessarily mean she
is capable of providing appropriate care to all her children. The special needs and
best interests of each child must be evaluated.” In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 421
(Iowa Ct. App. 1994); accord In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 550–51 (Iowa 1993)
(holding the individual child’s needs and best interests should be taken into
consideration when determining if the parent is capable of parenting that child).
The district court noted D.C.’s sister was about to turn fifteen years old and was
“old enough to self-protect if the need should arise.” On the contrary, D.C. is only
seven years old and is unable to protect himself. The record supports the district
court’s findings of a lack of progress by the mother necessary to safely return D.C.
to her care.
The mother also argues DHS did not provide reasonable efforts toward
reunification. Specifically, she claims DHS failed to provide visitations with D.C.
A DHS report notes DHS limited the mother’s unsupervised visits because the
mother continues to be deceptive about her relationship with the paramour. The
mother was always able to visit D.C. at the grandparents’ home; however, she
to self-protect if the need should arise. She is also very aware that she can go to her
grandparents’ home, which is nearby, if needed.”
4
failed to take advantage of this opportunity at any time during June and July 2018.
The mother’s assertions regarding a lack of visitation opportunities simply ring
hollow. Therefore, we agree the guardianship of D.C. was appropriately
transferred. We affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d),
(e).
AFFIRMED.