In the Interest of K.M. and P.B., Minor Children, T.B., Mother

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1490
Filed November 23, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF K.M. and P.B.,
Minor Children,
T.B., Mother,
Appellant.
_____________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order adjudicating her two children as
children in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
Deborah M. Skelton, Walford, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Cynthia Smith Finley, Cedar Rapids, for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order adjudicating her two children—
K.M., born in 2013, and P.B., born in 2015—as children in need of assistance (CINA)
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2015).1 The mother contends the State
did not prove the grounds for adjudication under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) by clear and
convincing evidence. Due to one child being injured during a domestic-abuse incident
and the mother’s inability to protect the children from future domestic abuse incidents,
we affirm the adjudication of both children.
The mother came to the attention of the department of human services (DHS) in
August 2015, after P.B.’s father, N.B., assaulted the mother and injured P.B. in the
process. The mother was holding P.B. when the father2 hit the mother and pushed her
onto a bed. P.B., who was only a few months old at the time, received a mark on her
forehead in the altercation. K.M. was also present during the assault. A confirmed
child- abuse assessment was completed naming the father as the person responsible.
DHS completed another child-abuse assessment after a January 2016 incident
during which the father hit the mother across the face at a laundromat. P.B. was
present during the altercation. The mother called the police. While being arrested, the
father resisted and forcefully hit an officer in the face, causing the officer to become
unconscious. The resulting child-abuse assessment was founded for denial of critical
care, lack of adequate supervision, with the father named as the person responsible.
Voluntary services began in March 2016. The mother participated in Family
Safety, Risk, and Permanency (FSRP) and Partners United for Supportive Housing
1
The fathers do not appeal.
2
We refer to N.B. as “the father” throughout our opinion although we acknowledge N.B. is the biological
father of only P.B.
3
(PUSH) services. Although she was encouraged to do so, the mother did not
immediately seek counseling services to address the domestic violence issues. The
mother initially stated she did not understand how domestic violence could be child
abuse. The mother shared with DHS social workers that her relationship with K.M.’s
father had also been violent and she had also witnessed her mother involved in violent
relationships when she was a child.
In May 2016, the mother and the father were involved in another violent
altercation. During an argument, the father pushed the mother onto the floor and held
his hands over her nose and mouth until she could not breathe. The father also
received minor scratches to his face and neck in the altercation. The mother was
pregnant with the father’s child at the time of the incident. Both K.M. and P.B. were
present during the assault. The mother notified a DHS social worker of the incident,
and the DHS social worker completed a safety check. The DHS social worker reported
that K.M. stated he was scared and he saw his mother get hurt. The mother also called
the police. Both the mother and the father were arrested for domestic abuse, but the
charges against the mother were later dropped. DHS completed another founded child-
abuse assessment as a result of the altercation, citing the mother and the father as the
persons responsible.
After each of the August 2015, January 2016, and May 2016 domestic-violence
incidents, no-contact orders were put into place to protect the mother and the children
from the father. Each time, the mother filed requests to cancel the no-contact orders.
The mother began counseling services sometime after the May 2016 incident.
Despite the mother’s initial steadfast refusal to begin counseling, her counselor testified
4
at the adjudication hearing that the mother was very engaged in the counseling
services. However, also sometime after the May 2016 incident, the mother and the
father married. DHS was not aware of the marriage until June 2016, when the
children’s maternal grandmother reported the marriage due to her concern regarding
the mother’s continuing relationship with the father.
The CINA petition was filed on May 17, 2016. A combined
adjudicatory/dispositional hearing was held July 28, 2016.
At the time of the adjudicatory/dispositional hearing, the father was incarcerated.
His attorney opined, twenty-one months “would be the absolute earliest he could
realistically expect to be paroled.” The mother maintains her relationship with the
father; communicates with him regularly; and is seeking to be a placement for another
child who is a CINA, born to the father and another woman.
In its adjudicatory and dispositional order, the juvenile court determined:
It is critical to the safety of her children that [the mother] engages in
domestic violence counseling and internalizes how incidents of domestic
violence impact her children. [The mother] has a long history of exposure
to domestic violence from her own childhood exposure through her
mother’s poor relationships to her own domestically violent adult
relationships with [N.B.] and [K.M.’s father]. The fact that [N.B.] is in jail
does not cure the issue. It is concerning that [the mother] . . . had no-
contact orders put into place for her protection but very quickly lifted so
she could resume a relationship with her attacker. [The mother] does not
believe her children are negatively impacted by exposure to domestic
violence. She lacks an understanding of the trauma it causes her children
to be exposed to violence.
The court also noted a DHS social worker’s testimony that she believed without
the CINA adjudication and judicial oversight, the mother would not continue participating
in voluntary services. The court held the State established by clear and convincing
5
evidence K.M. and P.B. should be adjudicated as CINA pursuant to section
232.2(6)(c)(2).
Our review of CINA proceedings is de novo. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa
2014). “In reviewing the proceedings, we are not bound by the juvenile court’s fact
findings; however, we do give them weight.” Id. “Our primary concern is the children’s
best interests.” Id.
The mother asserts the juvenile court erred in adjudicating the children as CINA
pursuant to section 232.2(6)(c)(2). She argues because the father was incarcerated at
the time of the adjudicatory hearing, the State could not present clear and convincing
evidence the children were imminently likely to suffer harm. She also argues there was
no indication she would not continue participating in voluntary services if the children
were not adjudicated CINA.
Section 232.2(6)(c)(2) provides a child in need of assistance is one who “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.”
CINA adjudication determinations must be based upon clear and convincing evidence.
Iowa Code § 232.96.
We agree with the juvenile court and find there is clear and convincing evidence
establishing grounds for adjudication under section 232.2(6)(c)(2). P.B. was physically
injured during the August 2015 domestic-abuse altercation. Although the mother was
the victim in all three incidents, she has an obligation to provide reasonable care to her
children, including providing for their safety. See In re S.O., 483 N.W.2d 602, 603 (Iowa
1992) (finding “[t]o return the children to [the mother]’s custody would place them in
6
imminent risk of harm” due to the mother’s “continued . . . pattern of sporadic
cohabitation and visitation” with her abuser, the father, and her “failure to protect the
children from abuse”). The mother knew P.B. was injured in the first reported abuse
incident. She was also supervising the children when K.M. was present during two of
the documented incidents of domestic violence, and P.B. was present for all three.
Further, K.M. expressed understanding of the events he had witnessed stating directly
after the May 2016 incident and again at a family team meeting held to discuss the
incident that he saw his mother get hurt.
Notwithstanding these facts, the mother has been unable to overcome the cycle
of violence and continues to maintain a relationship with the abuser, the father, who is
now incarcerated. In fact, she married him. Because she has maintained her
relationship with the father and sought cancellation of three no-contact orders in spite of
continued abuse in the presence of the children, along with the injury to one child, the
mother has failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the children.
P.B. has suffered harmful effects, and K.M. is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects
as a result of the mother’s failure to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising
the children by ensuring they are protected from being injured during domestic
altercations. Thus, we find clear and convincing evidence supports ground for
adjudication under section 232.2(6)(c)(2).
By all accounts the mother is a good mother to her children. We commend the
mother’s participation in voluntary services and engagement in domestic-violence
counseling. We sympathize with the mother’s own history, but she needs to fully
understand and overcome the cycle of violence she has experienced. We find little
7
solace in the father’s incarceration because, without fully addressing her issues with
perpetrators of domestic violence, the mother lacks the ability to safeguard her children
and prevent another abuser from entering her life in the father’s absence.
Our fundamental concern is the best interests of the children. We find CINA
adjudication is in K.M. and P.B.’s best interests. Adjudication will allow the mother more
time to continue counseling and demonstrate she has the knowledge and the ability to
provide reasonable care to her children. Adjudication will also allow for continued
protective court supervision, ensuring the safety of the children. We therefore affirm the
juvenile court’s CINA adjudicatory and dispositional order.
AFFIRMED.