IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., Minor Child, S.L.W., Mother, Appellant. ______
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-751 / 08-1377
Filed October 1, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF A.H.,
Minor Child,
S.L.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Louise Jacobs,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the adjudication of her child to be in need of assistance.
AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Mains of Mains Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Todd Babich, Des Moines, for appellee father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Chris Gonzales, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
M. Kathryn Miller, Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Suzanne is the mother of A.H., who was born in 2007. On June 25, 2008,
the State filed a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petition alleging that Suzanne
had a history of exposing her children to multiple abusers and that she was
currently in a relationship with an individual, Richard, who had a pending drug
charge. The petition furthermore alleged she had left A.H. alone with Richard.
Following a hearing on this petition, the juvenile court found A.H. to be in need of
assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2007). The court ordered
that A.H.’s legal custody be retained by Suzanne but ordered her to participate in
individual therapy. Suzanne appeals following the dispositional order.
Our scope of review in CINA proceedings is de novo. In re K.N., 625
N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings of
fact, but we are not bound by them. Id. Our overriding concern is the best
interests of the child. In re E.H. III, 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998).
A CINA adjudication under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) requires proof that the
child “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.”
The primary issue on appeal is whether the State
established by clear and convincing evidence that A.H. has suffered any harmful
effects or is imminently likely to do so.
The current CINA petition was filed with regard to Suzanne’s fourth child,
A.H., after she continued her involvement with Richard, who recently had been
charged with conspiracy to possess anhydrous ammonia with intent to
manufacture methamphetamine. However, while this appears to have been the
3
event precipitating the State’s current involvement, Suzanne has had a long
history of exposing her children to questionable men, prompting involvement with
the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)1. Suzanne’s two oldest children,
born in 2001 and 2003, were abused by her then-paramour in 2006 and 2007.
They were placed in foster care and Suzanne was making progress toward
reunification, when in March of 2008, she moved in with her current paramour,
Richard. This move, into the home of a man who had previously been abusive to
Suzanne, prompted termination proceedings regarding those two children.
Suzanne later consented to the termination of her parental rights after choosing
to continue her relationship with Richard.
When A.H. was between three and five months old, Suzanne left her
alone with Richard at his home “a couple of times.” While at the adjudication
hearing, Suzanne maintained she would not leave A.H. alone with Richard, she
also admitted she viewed her relationship with him as “long term.” The fact that
she would choose to continue her relationship with the very man who, because of
the danger he presented to Suzanne’s other children formed a basis for DHS to
seek termination of her parental rights, clearly demonstrates that A.H. is placed
at imminent risk. Suzanne has not learned the lessons that cost her the parental
rights to her two oldest children and which potentially threaten her rights to A.H.
Child protective services worker Melissa Gates offered her opinion that it was not
in A.H.’s best interests to have any contact with Richard. She opined that, based
1
The record also contains other instances of Suzanne associating with men who present
danger to her children. Suzanne has a third child to whom she has lost her parental
rights. The father of this child was abusive to Suzanne’s older son. Also, A.H.’s father
has a troubling past. Suzanne admitted to DHS that he “has a criminal history” and was
dishonest and untruthful to her.
4
on Suzanne’s history of exposing her children to abusive men coupled with her
current involvement with Richard, an abusive individual with a criminal history,
A.H. was at imminent risk to suffer harmful effects.
Suzanne was aware of
DHS’s position regarding her involvement with men, and in particular Richard,
who could pose possible threats to her children, yet she chose to ignore the
warnings.
The provisions of Iowa Code chapter 232 are preventative as well as
remedial. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 1990). Their goal is to prevent
probable harm, and they do not require delay until harm has occurred. In re
T.A.L., 505 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 1993). Moreover, we look to the whole body
of a parent’s past performance in CINA cases because that performance may be
indicative of the quality of the future care that the parent is capable of providing.
See L.L., 459 N.W.2d at 493.
adjudication.
These very real concerns justify A.H.’s
Suzanne’s poor judgment in her continued associations with
abusive men poses an imminent risk to A.H. of harmful effects.
Suzanne also claims the evidence does not demonstrate that the aid of
the juvenile court was required, and asserts dismissal of the CINA petition was
thus mandatory. She cites Iowa Code section 232.96(8), which provides in part:
“[I]f the court concludes that its aid is not required in the circumstances, the court
shall dismiss the petition.” Upon our de novo review, for the reasons mentioned
above, we fully agree with the juvenile court’s determination that its aid was
required, and affirm on this issue.
We believe the juvenile court accurately
characterized and identified the “common threat” running between the State’s
involvement with all four of her children as Suzanne’s choice to be involved with
5
abusive men and her history of engaging in unhealthy relationships. In light of
Suzanne’s failure to address this significant concern and her inability to exercise
better judgment on these matters, prompting the termination of her rights to her
other children, the aid of the court is fully justified.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
