IN THE INTEREST OF R.J. - B., Minor Child, L.B. J. , Mother, Appellant, H.J., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-965 / 08-1604
Filed December 31, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF R.J.-B.,
Minor Child,
L.B.J., Mother,
Appellant,
H.J., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, William S.
Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal the juvenile court order adjudicating their son,
R.J.-B., a child in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Patricia J. Lipski, Fairfield, for appellant mother.
William C. Glass, Keosauqua, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Tim W. Dille, County Attorney, and Patrick McAvan, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Mary Baird Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
2
MAHAN, J.
A mother and father appeal the juvenile court order adjudicating their son,
R.J.-B., a child in need of assistance. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.
R.J.-B. most recently came to the attention of the Iowa Department of
Human Services (DHS) in May 2008 when a child protection worker, Deb
Johnson, received an allegation that R.J.-B.’s mother had threatened to kill him
with a knife. Johnson went to speak with R.J.-B. at his school. R.J.-B. said he
had been accused of stealing gum from a store, that he had been confronted by
his mom, and that she pulled a butcher knife on him. He stated that his father
took the knife from her.
Johnson, accompanied by Sergeant G. A. Francisco went to speak to
R.J.-B.’s mother, L.B.J., who indicated she would not answer any questions and
wished to contact her lawyer. Johnson left her business card.
Johnson later received a telephone call from Francisco indicating R.J.-B.
had been dropped off at the law enforcement center by his father, who had said
nothing to anyone at the center. Johnson went to the law enforcement center
and spoke with Francisco.
She learned that R.J.-B.’s father, H.J., had called the center some time
after dropping off R.J.-B. and told them to find a place for his son and that he was
not going to take him home. H.J. was told to come and get R.J.-B. However,
when he arrived, officers smelled alcohol on his breath and arrested him.1 In
light of the allegations of the knife and H.J.’s arrest, a determination was made
1
Apparently there was also a warrant out for his arrest.
3
that R.J.-B. would not be safe going home and Johnson was called. Johnson
spoke with L.B.J. at the law enforcement center and asked her to sign a
voluntary placement agreement, which she refused to do.
Johnson then
arranged for R.J.-B. to be placed in a shelter because no foster home placement
was available.
An application for temporary removal and a CINA petition were filed. A
temporary removal hearing was held. R.J.-B.’s parents were given notice, but
did not attend.
The parties present, including R.J.-B.’s guardian ad litem,
stipulated that an earlier ex parte removal could be confirmed and that legal
custody should remain with DHS for purposes of placement in shelter/foster care.
An adjudicatory hearing was held on August 6 and 13, 2008.
L.B.J.
testified that R.J.-B. was living with L.B.J.’s mother (R.J.-B.’s grandmother) and
two siblings in an apartment before being placed in the shelter. The apartment
had an occupancy limit of four persons and, consequently, L.B.J. was living in a
homeless shelter; R.J.-B.’s father, H.J., was living with a friend.
Johnson testified about the circumstances leading to R.J.-B.’s removal
from parental custody. She stated that both L.B.J. and H.J. adamantly denied
any incident involving a knife, but acknowledged there had been a confrontation
because they were upset after receiving information that R.J.-B., while out with
his eleven-month-old brother, and taken some gum from a convenience store.
Johnson also testified that H.J. told her, “If I didn’t drop him off there, I was gonna
do something to seriously hurt this kid.” She testified that the parents had longterm issues with R.J.-B. and his behavior, including his lying and stealing, and
that their frustration with R.J.-B. placed him at risk.
Johnson had further
4
discussions with R.J.-B., who recanted his allegations, but would not talk about
matters at home. Consequently, Johnson testified she did not confirm the initial
abuse report.
Johnson testified that she continued to have concerns about R.J.-B.’s
safety, however, due to prior CINA adjudications related to founded abuse and
denial of supervision reports in 2004 and 2005. She testified that R.J.-B. had
previously been removed from L.B.J.’s home and had stayed several months at
the Independence Mental Health Institute. He returned home in March 2006 and
was to continue individual therapy and medication. She stated R.J.-B. was no
longer on medication and was not receiving individual therapy.
Johnson testified R.J.-B. continues to have behavioral and mental-health
issues and he was having behavior problems at the shelter. She testified that
based upon evaluations by Drs. Jerald Catron and Christopher Okiishi, she
recommended that R.J.-B. receive individual counseling. She stated she had
concerns about a lack of parental involvement and cooperation and the
possibility of physical abuse, particularly if there were no services or adjudication.
H.J. testified that R.J.-B. had been caught shoplifting in the past and that
on the day he dropped R.J.-B. off at the law enforcement center it was a result of
another instance of shoplifting and R.J.-B. making allegations about his mother’s
behavior. H.J. testified he told R.J.-B.:
“Well, you know what? Nobody wants to hold you accountable for
your actions, so you don’t want to behave, you don’t want to listen
to me, you don’t want to listen to your mom, so I’m gonna take you
to where they deal with people that don’t – don’t listen and I’m
gonna take you to where they don’t -- where they deal with people
who commit crimes. If you don’t want to listen to us, I’m gonna take
you there,” and I took him down to the law center where there’s –
5
under my impression, there are responsible adults there. It’s not an
unsupervised area. There are responsible adults there, police
officers, so they’re – they’re sworn to be responsible.
Dropped him off, waited in the parking lot until he walked
through the two doors that are in the law center, and then I left. I
called about a half an hour later to check on him to make sure that,
you know, he was okay, and they told me that I need to come get
him, that “It’s not our job to deal with your child.” . . .
I said, “Well, I did what I’ve been told to do. Someone
commits a crime, you report them to the law center. You can’t
handle the situation, you report them to the law center because
that’s how stuff gets done.”
H.J. further testified that when he took R.J.-B. to the law enforcement center:
I was exhausted. I was at my wit’s end. I had done – I had jumped
through every possible hoop that I could jump through with DHS in
his previous CINA case. I had been branded a bad parent and my
wife had been branded a bad parent. It was our fault that he was
the way that he was. At that point in time I had just had it. I didn’t
know anything else that could be done.
H.J. testified that R.J.-B. could safely be returned home.
On August 26, 2008, the juvenile court filed an order finding R.J.-B. a child
in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2007) (child
is likely to suffer harm due to parents’ failure to exercise care in supervising child)
and ordered that he remain in the custody of the DHS.
A dispositional hearing was held on October 8, 2008, and an order was
filed on October 21, 2008. In the depositional order, the juvenile court noted that
in June 2008 R.J.-B. had undergone a psychological assessment with a result
diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and a psychiatric assessment with
the resultant diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of
Emotion and Conduct, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The juvenile
court noted that Dr. Okiishi found it alarming that R.J.-B.’s family had “essentially
6
taught him to stonewall investigations.” Dr. Okiishi had recommended residential
treatment if R.J.-B.’s behavior did not improve.
R.J.-B. was placed in a residential program in September where he “was
very obstinate with authority, struggles with accepting consequences and is
regularly aggressive and violent toward staff when being confronted.” The court
noted that the parents agreed that R.J.-B. needed the type of treatment he was
receiving, but they believed he could be provided the treatment without DHS’s
involvement. The court found:
[I]t is clear that [R.J.-B.] is exhibiting many of the same behaviors
today as he was during that prior [CINA] proceeding. The parents
have had an opportunity to attempt to deal with [R.J.-B.’s]
behaviors, but their answer was to instill in him a fear of disclosing
family information to others, and to abandon him at a police station
when his behaviors became too difficult to cope with.
The court also found the parents had shown their commitment to R.J.-B.
by “becoming involved in his residential treatment process by communicating
with staff, attending staffing and maintaining phone contact with [R.J.-B.]” The
court confirmed the finding that R.J.-B. was a child in need of assistance;
continued temporary guardianship and legal custody with DHS for placement in
residential treatment; and set a time for a review hearing.
Mother and father now appeal the adjudication and removal.
II. Standard of Review.
Our scope of review in juvenile court proceedings is de novo. In re K.N.,
625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). “Although we give weight to the juvenile
court’s factual findings, we are not bound by them.” Id. Our primary concern is
the best interests of the child. Id.
7
III. Merits.
To adjudicate R.J.-B. as a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to
section 232.2(6)(c)(2) the State must establish by clear and convincing evidence
that he has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of
failure of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian or other member of the
household in which the child resides to exercise a reasonable degree of care in
supervising the child. Again, our primary concern is the best interests of the
child. In re E.H., 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998).
Both parents claim the evidence at the adjudicatory hearing was
insufficient to prove R.J.-B. was in need of assistance. While they agree that his
current placement is appropriate, they believe DHS need not be involved.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we find there is clear and
convincing evidence to support a finding that R.J.-B. is imminently likely to suffer
from a lack of needed treatment and supervision if returned to his mother and
father at this time without the involvement of DHS. See In re Dameron, 306
N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981) (finding “[t]he future can be gleaned from evidence
of the parents’ past performance and motivations”).
We commend the parents in their recognition that R.J.-B.’s current
placement is appropriate. They wish that placement be continued without DHS
involvement, but we find it unlikely that R.J.-B. would receive appropriate
treatment absent the CINA adjudication. We conclude R.J.-B.’s interests are
best served by adjudicating him a child in need of assistance.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
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.
