Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-842 / 11-1405 Filed December 7, 2011

IN THE INTEREST OF L.S., Minor Child, C.S., Father, Appellant, ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Charles K. Borth, District Associate Judge.

A father appeals from a dispositional review order returning the minor child to the mother. AFFIRMED.

John P. Greer, Spencer, for appellant father. Michael Johnson, Spirit Lake, for mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Houchins, County Attorney, and Kristi Busse, Assistant County Attorney, for State. Shannon Sandy of Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, for minor child.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.

2 DOYLE, J. A father appeals from a dispositional review order returning the minor child to the mother. We affirm, based upon our de novo review of the record. See In re K.B., 753 N.W.2d 14, 15 (Iowa 2008). I. Background Facts and Proceedings. The mother has a long history of substance abuse and involvement with the Iowa Department of Human Services. Her three oldest children were

removed from her care in 2007 after it was determined two of them had been exposed to methamphetamine and cocaine. The mother entered an inpatient treatment program where she gave birth to the minor child at issue in this case, L.S. After the mother completed the program, L.S. and her older sister were allowed to stay in her care. The two oldest children remained in an out-of-home placement. Unfortunately, the mother relapsed in March 2009. She placed L.S. with the father, and L.S.'s sister went to live with a maternal aunt. The mother's relapse was a violation of her probation for a drug-related offense. She was accordingly sentenced to a violator's program at the Women's Correctional Facility in Mitchellville. She completed the program and continued to voluntarily participate with services through the Department. persisted. In May 2010, the Department asked the mother to submit to a hair stat test. She refused, eventually admitting she had used methamphetamine again. The mother entered an inpatient treatment program in July 2010 but left a little more than a week later. She was pregnant with her fifth child at the time. Yet her drug problems

3 Due to her mother's drug use, L.S. was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance (CINA) in August 2010 pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), (m), and (n) (2009). The juvenile court placed L.S. in the custody of her father, with whom she had been residing since 2009, under the Department's protective supervision. placement. A dispositional review hearing was held in August 2011, at which the mother sought the return of L.S. to her care. The mother had been sober for at least fifteen months. She was employed, had stable housing, and was A subsequent dispositional order continued that

cooperating with the services offered by the Department. Her youngest child had been in her care since her birth in early 2011. The caseworker who had worked with the family since the Department's initial involvement in 2007 nevertheless recommended L.S. remain in her father's custody, due to concerns about the "roller coaster ride that [the mother] has always been on." He testified, "The case plan highlight[s] since 2007 the numbers of incarcerations, treatment. In July of 2010 she walked out of inpatient treatment. . . . She never really fully cooperated." In contrast, according to the caseworker, the father "has raised [the child] most of her life. He provides excellent care for her." The child's guardian ad litem was more noncommittal, but testified, "I can't say that there would be a safety concern if in fact [L.S.] was placed in the custody of her mother at this time." Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered an order returning the minor child to her mother's custody under the Department's protective supervision. The court reasoned:

4 Although [the mother's] cooperation and participation in services during her lengthy involvement in juvenile court with her older children has been sporadic at best, she now appears to have made some significant changes toward a healthy, substance free, lifestyle. While the primary safety concern has always been substance abuse by [the mother], she has now been drug-free by all accounts for the past 15-17 months. She has had regular [unsupervised] visitation with [L.S.], generally alternating weekends, but sometimes longer. She has been the parent primarily responsible for [L.S.'s] medical care. She has been parenting her six-month old infant without any reports of maltreatment. The family's new FSRP worker . . . has observed no concerns regarding [the mother's] parenting skills and has no concerns returning [L.S.] to [the mother's] care. . . . The father appeals.1 II. Discussion. The father claims the juvenile court erred in removing the child from his custody and returning her to the mother. We disagree for the reasons that follow. After a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court may enter an order "permitting the child's parent, guardian or custodian at the time of the filing of the petition to retain custody of the child," Iowa Code

Download IN THE INTEREST OF L.S., Minor Child, C.S., Father, Appellant,.pdf

Iowa Law