Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-926 / 07-0219 Filed December 12, 2007 IN THE INTEREST OF P.S., Minor Child, P.H. and R.H., Intervenors, Appellants. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, District Associate Judge.

Foster parents appeal a juvenile court order returning child to the physical custody of his mother. AFFIRMED.

Kimberly Haddox of Haddox Law Firm, Indianola, for appellant intervenor. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel Feistner, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State. William Early, Harlan, for appellee mother. Andrew Knuth of Rutherford, Trewet & Knuth, Atlantic, for appellee father. Karen Mailander of Mailander Law Office, Anita, for minor child.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.

2 BAKER, J. Foster parents appeal a juvenile court order returning a child to the physical custody of his mother. Because the foster parents failed to establish the mother is not a suitable parent and the child's best interests require he be removed from her care, we affirm the juvenile court order. I. Background and Facts Misty is the mother and Joseph is the father of two daughters, C.S., born in December 1999, and L.S., born in March 2001. They are also the parents of a son, P.S., born in July 2002. The children were removed from their parents' home in September 2003 due to their father's failure to supervise them while the mother was at work and the dirty and inappropriate condition of the home. In October 2003 they were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (g) (2003). At that time, the parents were married and living together. They are currently separated and plan to divorce. The children were initially placed in family foster care. In November 2003, the two girls were placed with their maternal grandmother, and P.S. was placed with maternal relatives, Pansie and Richard, in foster care. In June 2004, C.S. returned to her mother's custody, and in February 2005, L.S. returned to her mother's custody. Both have remained continuously in their mother's care. They continue to be adjudicated CINA and continue to receive services through the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). P.S. remained at the home of his foster parents. When he was first placed with them, he had some developmental delays. Under their care, he made good

3 progress. He has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. He also has a congenital medical condition, osteochondroma, which requires regular medical attention and attention to his diet. In March 2006, the juvenile court dismissed the State's petition to terminate Misty and Joseph's parental rights to P.S., finding there was not clear and convincing evidence that P.S. could not be returned to the custody of his parents or that continued services would not correct the conditions within a reasonable time. Although it was anticipated he would have difficulty returning to his

mother's home due to the significant bond he had developed with his foster parents, DHS developed a permanency plan to reunify P.S. with his mother. He was placed with his mother in April 2006 and remains with her. He continues to be adjudicated CINA and to participate in services through DHS. On December 20, 2006, a contested CINA permanency review hearing was held. The court ordered P.S. remain CINA and continue in his mother's custody, subject to DHS supervision. Having intervened in the proceedings, the foster parents now appeal that portion of the juvenile court's permanency review order that keeps the custody of P.S. with his mother. The foster parents did not appeal the March 2006 order dismissing the State's petition to terminate parental rights. II. Merits Our scope of review in juvenile proceedings is de novo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). We give weight to the court's findings of fact, but are not bound by them. Id. "As in all juvenile proceedings, our fundamental concern is the best interests of the child." Id.

4 The foster parents contend the juvenile court erred in placing P.S. with his mother "merely because she is his mother." The parents of a minor child, if suitable and qualified, are preferred over all others as the child's guardian and custodian. See Iowa Code

Download IN THE INTEREST OF P.S., Minor Child, P.H. and R.H., Intervenors, Appellants..pd

Iowa Law