Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-924 / 07-1672 Filed December 12, 2007

IN THE INTEREST OF J.S. and J.S., Minor Children, C.L.S., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Alan D. Allbee, Associate Juvenile Judge.

The mother appeals from the juvenile court's ex parte temporary removal, adjudicatory, and dispositional orders and ruling on her Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion. AFFIRMED.

Kevin E. Schoeberl of Story & Schoeberl Law Firm, Cresco, for appellant mother. Mark Anderson, Cresco, for father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew F. Van Der Maaten, County Attorney, and Stephen Belay, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State. Karl Knudson, Decorah, for minor children.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.

2 HUITINK, P.J. The mother appeals from the juvenile court's ex parte temporary removal, adjudicatory, and dispositional orders and ruling on her Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion. We affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. C.L.S. is the mother of the two children, J.S., age five, and J.S., age three. Both were removed from the mother's care pursuant to a March 29, 2007 ex parte removal order. The order was issued based on allegations that the mother was using methamphetamines and refused to submit to definitive hair stat testing or allow the children to be similarly tested. Post-removal testing of the younger child indicated she had been continuously exposed to methamphetamines for the ninety-day period prior to removal. The older child's tests were negative. The disparate test results were attributed to the younger child's closer and more frequent contact with the mother as well as the older child's shorter hair style. Although the mother eventually agreed to the requested hair stat testing, the test could not be performed because she had shaved her head and wore a wig. According to the mother, she shaved her head because of head lice infestation and continued to shave her head and wear a wig as a matter of personal preference. Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) employees familiar with the mother's appearance at the time of removal believed she was not wearing a wig at that time. The mother further claimed she could not produce the wig because her dog ate it. On May 22, 2007, the juvenile court adjudicated both children as children in need of assistance (CINA) on multiple grounds, including Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) (abuse and neglect), (c)(2) (lack of supervision),

3 and (o) (presence of illegal drugs in child's body) (2007). The mother's post-trial rule 1.904(2) motion, claiming the juvenile court erroneously shifted the burden of proof concerning her denial of substance abuse to her, was denied. The juvenile court's September 10, 2007 dispositional order placed the children with the mother, subject to supervision by DHS. On appeal, the mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's removal, adjudicatory, and dispositional orders. She also claims the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof to her concerning her denial of substance abuse. II. Standard of Review. Our scope of review in CINA proceedings is de novo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). We review both the facts and the law and

adjudicate the parties' rights anew. Id. We give weight to the juvenile court's findings of fact, especially its credibility determinations; however, we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). The State has the burden of proving the grounds by clear and convincing evidence. Iowa Code

Download IN THE INTEREST OF J.S. and J.S., Minor Children, C.L.S., Mother, Appellant..pdf

Iowa Law