IN THE INTEREST OF S.P. and J.P., Minor Children, H.P., Mother, Appellant, M.P., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-593 / 06-0904
Filed August 9, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF S.P. and J.P.,
Minor Children,
H.P., Mother,
Appellant,
M.P., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kristin L. Hibbs,
Judge.
A mother and father appeal from a juvenile court order that denied their
application to modify a prior dispositional order. AFFIRMED.
Natalie Cronk, Iowa City, for appellant mother.
Jacob Koller of Johnston & Nathanson, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, J. Patrick White, County Attorney, and Kristen Parks and Deborah
Minot, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee State.
Maurine Braddock of Honohan, Eppley, Braddock & Brenneman, Iowa
City, for intervenor.
Shannon Walsh, Iowa City, for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
Heather and Matthew, the parents of two children, appeal from a juvenile
court order that denied their application to modify a dispositional order. They
contend the record establishes a material and substantial change in
circumstances sufficient to warrant returning their children to their care. They
also contend the court erred in determining reasonable efforts were made toward
reunification and in denying increased visitation. We affirm.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
Heather and Matthew are the parents of Skylar, born May 1999, and Jade,
born November 2002. The children were removed from the parents’ home on
July 18, 2005, after the Iowa City Police Department arrested Matthew at his
home on an outstanding warrant. When the police arrived at the home, there
were six children present. A naked woman was lying on the living room floor with
children running around her. The police found methamphetamine, syringes, and
a closed circuit television system in the home that allowed the parents to see
who was at the door as well as monitor the children upstairs. The parents were
watching hardcore pornography and arguing loudly and profanely about anal sex.
The juvenile court adjudicated Skylar and Jade as children in need of
assistance (CINA) on August 25, 2005, pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.2(6)(n) 1 and 232.2(6)(o) 2 (2005) due to concerns regarding substance abuse
1
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(n) describes a child in need of assistance as a child
“[w]hose parent’s or guardian’s mental capacity or condition, imprisonment, or drug or
alcohol abuse results in the child not receiving adequate care.”
2
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(o) describes a child in need of assistance as a child “[i]n
whose body there is an illegal drug present as a direct and foreseeable consequence of
the acts or omissions of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.”
3
and inadequate supervision. The parents stipulated to the adjudication. Heather
and Matthew both admitted to being high when caring for their children. Jade
tested positive for methamphetamine after the children were removed from their
parents’ home.
The parents had also allowed an inappropriate caretaker to
supervise their children. Following adjudication, the children were ordered to
remain in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in their
present foster care placement, and DHS began offering reunification services to
the family.
The children’s foster parents noticed that Skylar repeatedly acted out in
sexual ways. The children were removed from their first foster home and placed
in treatment level foster care due to Skylar’s aggression toward the foster family’s
pets and her sexual acting out with her sister.
Dr. Elizabeth Doak, an experienced pediatric clinical psychologist,
evaluated Skylar.
She diagnosed the child with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, adjustment disorder with anxiety, and disturbance of conduct. Dr. Doak
also found Skylar was “a seriously traumatized child who shows symptoms
consistent with sexual abuse.” She concluded it was “clear from her play,
behavior and symptoms that she has experienced both family violence and some
type of sexual abuse.”
Skylar told Dr. Doak her parents told her not to tell
anyone about the abuse. When Dr. Doak confronted the parents with evidence
of Skylar’s sexualized behavior, both parents denied she had been sexually
abused or exposed to adult sexual behavior. Dr. Doak recommended that Skylar
remain in treatment level foster care.
4
In March 2006 Matthew filed a motion to modify custody and a request for
reasonable efforts, asking the court to return Skylar and Jade to his custody or
increase visitation. Heather joined in the motion. Following a contested hearing,
the juvenile court denied the parents’ motion in an order filed May 12, 2006.
Matthew and Heather have appealed.
II.
Scope and Standards of Review
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 juvenile court’s findings of
fact, but we are not bound by them. Id. Our primary concern is the best interests
of the children. In re E.H. III, 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998). In order to
modify the placement or custody of Heather and Matthew’s children, there must
be a showing of a material and substantial change in circumstances. In re R.F.,
471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991).
III.
Discussion
The parents raise several issues on appeal. They contend the record
establishes a material and substantial change in circumstances sufficient to
warrant returning their children to them.
They also argue the court erred in
determining reasonable efforts were made toward reunification and in denying
increased visitation. For the reasons that follow, we find no merit in any of the
parents’ appellate claims.
A.
Modification
Since their children were removed from their care, the parents have made
considerable progress in addressing the concerns of substance abuse and
domestic violence that brought their children to the attention of DHS. However,
5
as the juvenile court aptly observed, this case involves much more than issues
relating to parental problems and marital discord.
At the modification hearing, Dr. Doak testified it was clear Skylar had been
traumatized.
She opined it was important for Skylar “to have a very stable,
nurturing, firm environment where her psychological problems are paid attention
to and treated appropriately.”
Dr. Doak recommended that Skylar remain in
treatment level foster care because if she returned to a traumatic environment,
she could be at risk for mental health problems. Although both parents denied
the possibility that Skylar had been sexually abused, Heather testified there was
a possibility Skylar’s sexual behavior resulted from her exposure to pornography
and her parents’ sex acts. She admitted it was possible Skylar witnessed her
parents engaged in sexual intercourse.
After carefully considering the evidence, the juvenile court concluded there
was clear and convincing evidence that Skylar was sexually abused in some
manner, that she was told not to tell by her parents, and that the bad touch
occurred in her parents’ home. The court also concluded that neither parent had
properly released Skylar from their instructions to keep certain matters secret.
The court then declined to order the children returned to their parents’ care.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we determine it is in the children’s
best interests to continue their placement in treatment level foster care. This
placement will ensure the children’s safety while maximizing Skylar’s chances for
recovery. We affirm the juvenile court’s ruling on this issue.
6
B.
Reasonable Efforts toward Reunification
Heather and Matthew next claim the court erred in determining reasonable
efforts were made toward reunification because DHS refused their prior requests
for increased visitation. The juvenile court listed the numerous services offered
to the family and found those services reasonable under the circumstances.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we find no reason to disagree with this
decision.
C.
Visitation
The parents also contend the court erred by failing to order increased
visitation following the modification hearing. As we have mentioned, Dr. Doak
recommended continued out-of-home placement in a treatment level foster
home. The juvenile court found this recommendation persuasive and declined
the invitation to establish a timeline for increased visitation and the return of the
children.
Because we find no reason to disagree with the juvenile court’s
decision, we reject this assignment of error.
IV.
Conclusion
We conclude ample evidence supports the juvenile court’s refusal to
return these children to the home of their parents. We also conclude the juvenile
court acted reasonably in finding DHS engaged in reasonable unification efforts.
Finally, we conclude the juvenile court acted reasonably in refusing to order
unsupervised visits following the modification hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the
juvenile court’s decision.
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.
