In the Interest of C.C. and J.C., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1261
Filed December 7, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF C.C., and J.C.,
Minor Children,
M.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother challenges juvenile court intervention and the court’s finding her
children are in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Patricia J. Lipski, Washington, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Jonathan Willier, Centerville, for appellee father.
Samuel K. Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother challenges juvenile court intervention; the court’s finding that her
children, J.C. (born January 2015) and C.C. (born April 2016), are children in need
of assistance (CINA); and the children’s placement with their paternal grandfather.
On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence the children would
be 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 should they be
returned to her care. We affirm the finding the children are CINA as defined in
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2022).1
The department of health and human services (DHHS) became involved
with the mother and her two children the evening of March 3, 2022, when the
mother reported J.C. had disappeared after being left outside in the cold to play.
J.C. was eventually located some distance from the family home without a coat
and taken to the law center. When the mother arrived at the law center, her
demeanor was inconsistent with what occurred, as she was quick to anger and just
as quick to calm down. Law enforcement were concerned about the mother’s initial
lack of cooperation, her heightened emotions, and her “pinpoint” pupils. The
mother tried to leave with the children, but officers were able to keep her there and
contacted DHHS. The on-call DHHS worker, Sunny Allison, arrived and noted the
mother did not interact with the children; rather, she left them to be supervised by
1Section 232.2(6)(c)(2) defined a CINA as an unmarried child “[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.”
A statutory reorganization moved the provision for the adjudication of a child in
need of assistance to a new section, with this ground for adjudication now found
at Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b) (Supp. 2022).
3
officers at the law center. Allison felt the mother’s variable emotions and behaviors
suggested either substance use or a mental-health concern. The mother
expressed to law enforcement and Allison that she did not know why anyone was
concerned about J.C.2 She would not allow Allison to visit the family home for a
safety check and would not consent to drug testing. After several hours, the
mother did agree to a safety plan that temporarily placed the children with their
paternal grandfather.
Kathy Blazina, the child protection worker, contacted the paternal
grandfather a few days later, and the grandfather reported the children were doing
well. He also stated he and his son, the children’s father, had discussions about
the father taking the children back to the father’s home in Alabama. DHHS did not
know if there was an existing custodial order and did not offer any legal advice.
The father did come to Iowa and took the children home to Alabama. DHHS
asked him to return the children after a custodial order from 2017 in Texas was
presented and determined to be in place. Despite promises to do so, the father
did not return the children.
A temporary removal order was entered on March 31.
The father reported he was financially unable to return the children; he was
eventually charged and arrested for violation of the custodial order. On April 6,
Blazina and the grandfather flew to Alabama to return the children to Iowa.
At the May 4 and 18 CINA adjudication hearings, Blazina testified that while
at the airport arranging to take custody of the children, she received a call from the
2 Allison later learned J.C. has a learning disability and had been left outside
supervised only by the younger C.C.
4
mother. She told the mother what had transpired and that she was on her way
back to Iowa with the children. Blazina stated she had had appropriate
conversations with the mother at her home in Iowa, but this telephone conversation
left her concerned about the mother’s mental health or substance use. The mother
said she was in Kansas and was on her way to Alabama to take custody of J.C.
and C.C. Yet, she would not believe the children were in Alabama and maintained
the children had never left Iowa.
Blazina testified she completed her child abuse investigation and, based on
her assessment of the family and the allegations, found a denial of critical care and
lack of supervision. The ongoing case was then reassigned to DHHS social work
case manager Sydney Weldon.
Weldon met with the mother on April 8 and noted the mother appeared to
be very confused about the juvenile court’s ex parte removal order and the
circumstances surrounding the children being placed with their paternal
grandfather. Weldon had a phone conversation with the mother on April 15 to
discuss having an interaction with the children. The mother advised she did not
need to arrange for visits because she has a custodial order and the children had
not been removed by court order and hung up.
The mother did participate in a visit on April 26, and Weldon had a phone
conversation with her before the visit during which the mother became very upset.
Later, during the mother’s visit with C.C., the mother told the service provider she
did not intend to allow the child to return to the paternal grandfather’s home. The
provider contacted Weldon, who came to the home with the court’s ex parte order
in hand. As Weldon approached, the mother got up from where she was sitting
5
with the child, went inside the house, locked the door, and refused to open it. Law
enforcement was called, and they forced their way into the home and assisted
Weldon in taking custody of the child. Weldon was concerned when C.C. showed
no emotional response to the situation. The mother was taken into custody on a
charge of interference with official acts.
At the May 4 adjudicatory hearing, Weldon testified the mother had not
cooperated in efforts to schedule visits and had been unreachable since the
April 26 visit. On May 18, Weldon testified she continued to have concerns about
the mother’s substance use or mental health. Weldon stated she attempted to
offer in-home services but the mother is difficult to contact. The mother did not
testify, though she filed a letter alleging the children were illegally removed from
her care or kidnapped and asked for a dismissal of the CINA proceedings and that
the children have no further involvement with services.
On June 1, the juvenile court found the children were at imminent risk of
adjudicatory harm if returned to the mother’s care, adjudicated both children as
CINA, and confirmed the ex parte removal order. The court also found the least
restrictive alternative for the children was for DHHS to have legal custody with
placement in foster, relative, or other responsible adult care. The July 14
dispositional order continued that placement decision.
On appeal, the mother maintains she does not use drugs or alcohol, or have
mental-health conditions which result in the children receiving inadequate care.
She alleges the State has not made reasonable efforts to prevent the children’s
removal and “provided little to no information and no reunification services to the
mother for nearly three weeks.” She contends she did not see or speak to the
6
children for more than a month, and she did not know whether the children were
safe and cared for. The mother asserts she is willing to participate in voluntary
services so the juvenile proceedings are unnecessary and should be dismissed.
We review equity proceedings de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We give
weight to the court’s factual findings, though we are not bound by them. Iowa R.
App. P. 6.904(3)(g). “The most important consideration in any CINA case is the
best interests of the child[ren].” In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 362 (Iowa 2002).
At some point after seven-year-old J.C. was outside with five-year-old C.C.
supervising, the mother realized J.C. was missing and called the police. Because
she was uncooperative in giving information, law enforcement did not know how
long the child had been missing. A concerned citizen called the police after seeing
J.C. wandering around alone several blocks from home. It was cold, and J.C. had
no coat. After the police found the child, they took him to the law center and called
the mother. Considering the mother’s telephone calls and her behavior when she
came to the law center, the police were hesitant to return the child to her. She was
uncooperative and initially would not give her name. The police were concerned
she was under the influence of a substance or had serious mental-health issues
and called DHHS to assess whether the child was safe in the mother’s care. The
mother was not cooperative with the DHHS worker either but eventually agreed to
a safety plan placing the children with their paternal grandfather. She left the
children before the grandfather arrived.
The mother maintained no problem existed with her parenting and would
not consent to drug testing or a safety inspection of the home. She refused to
participate with the preparation of social history, insisting the children had not been
7
adjudicated CINA; she persists in her belief the children have been illegally
removed from her care. She has not participated in the offered services. See In
re H.R.K., 433 N.W.2d 46, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (noting “requirement that the
parents acknowledge and recognize the abuse before any meaningful change can
occur is essential in meeting the child’s needs”); see also In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 777 (Iowa 2012) (noting father failed to acknowledge his drug use
despite strong evidence to the contrary).
We, like the juvenile court, find clear and convincing evidence supports a
finding J.C. suffered harmful effects as a result of the mother’s failure to provide
appropriate supervision. The evidence shows DHHS has attempted to provide
services, but the mother has either rejected those offers or made herself
unavailable to participate in them. Her current assertion that she will participate in
voluntary services carries little weight. The children would face adjudicatory risk if
returned to the mother’s care at this time; continued removal is necessary to
ensure the children’s safety and is in the children’s best interests. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.