IN THE INTEREST OF C.N., Minor Child, L.A.R., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-345 / 07-0646
Filed May 23, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF C.N.,
Minor Child,
L.A.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s permanency ruling. AFFIRMED.
Edward Bull of Bull Law Office, P.C., for appellant mother.
Judy Johnson of Altoona, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon Anderson, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Lisa appeals her child’s permanency ruling. She argues (1) the State
failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her child; (2) the child’s best
interests are not served through placement with his paternal grandparents;
(3) the juvenile court erred in refusing to grant her a six-month extension; (4) the
juvenile court erred in admitting evidence; and (5) the juvenile court abused its
discretion when it failed to review transcripts of prior hearings. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Lisa and Kent are parents of C.N., born in January 1998. Lisa and Kent
never married, and Lisa has been C.N.’s primary caregiver throughout his life.
C.N. suffers from a mild form of autism. He has also received counseling for
sexual abuse that occurred at a daycare center. He has special needs which, if
not regulated in a structured environment, cause him to act out violently.
In September 2005 the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
issued a founded child abuse report after Lisa failed to provide proper
supervision. In March 2006 C.N. was hospitalized for emotional and behavioral
problems. C.N. was removed from Lisa’s care in mid-March and placed with his
paternal grandparents. On May 8, 2006, he was adjudicated a child in need of
assistance (CINA). During the summer of 2006, Lisa was receiving treatment for
her own mental health issues. Throughout July, she experienced difficulty with
her medication and was groggy or fell asleep during visits and while meeting with
the service provider. She apparently, however, worked relatively well with DHS
and service providers. By Thanksgiving 2006 she was about to receive all-day
unsupervised visitation. However, on December 1, 2006, a DHS worker stopped
3
at her home and found federal marshals raiding the apartment. No charges were
filed against Lisa, but federal marshals found she was allowing two fugitives to
stay in her apartment.
After the December incident, Lisa’s visitation was
suspended. She now has supervised visitation.
Since his removal, C.N.’s behavior has improved dramatically. He was
eight years old and in the first grade at the time of removal. The record shows he
was nearly uncontrollable at school. He threw tantrums, overturned desks, and
screamed obscenities. He had to be kept in a special education classroom to
attend to his behavior. In his paternal grandparents care, he has begun receiving
regular medication and attending therapy and school on a regular basis. He has
been allowed back into the mainstream classroom for the majority of the time.
He shows academic promise and was able to skip the second grade.
At the permanency hearing, DHS recommended C.N. remain in his
grandparents’ care and the grandparents be allowed to pursue guardianship of
C.N.
DHS also recommended that visitation with Lisa continue at the
department’s discretion. Lisa requested six additional months to work toward
reunification. The juvenile court determined the State made reasonable efforts
toward reunification. It also determined that termination of Lisa’s parental rights
would not be in C.N.’s best interests. Instead, the court transferred guardianship
and custody to the paternal grandparents pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.104(2)(d)(1) (2005). Lisa appeals.
4
II. Standard of Review
Our review of permanency orders is de novo. In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85,
90 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). Our primary concern is the child’s best interests. In re
K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 2003).
III. Merits
A. Reasonable Efforts
Lisa argues the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with
C.N. She requested more visitation or less restrictive visitation on the record on
January 9, 2007.
February 2007.
She again addressed the issue with her DHS worker in
The record indicates DHS made no changes in visitation.
According to DHS reports, Lisa seemed unstable. She demonstrated periods of
improvement, but between January and March 2007, was distraught over the
upcoming permanency hearing and unable to focus or cooperate with the inhome worker. She called workers multiple times. She left panicked telephone
messages, only to call back several minutes later sounding calm, then call back
hysterical. Her psychotherapist testified that, for the year he had been seeing
her, he had seen Lisa stable for no more than two weeks at a time.
instability adversely affects C.N.
Her
For example, she promised to buy him a
Nintendo Wii. On his birthday, however, she called DHS workers in a panic
because she had not gotten him a present. When Lisa appeared without the Wii,
C.N. was extremely distraught and Lisa cried. The in-home worker threatened to
end the visit. Later, Lisa told her caseworker the visit went very well.
The record thus makes it clear that increasing C.N.’s visits with Lisa was
not in the child’s best interests. His condition requires stability, consistency, and
5
reasonable expectations. Lisa’s mental instability and tendency to put herself
ahead of C.N.’s best interests did not facilitate extra visitation. We therefore find
the district court did not err in determining the State made reasonable efforts
toward reunification.
B. Grandparent Placement
Lisa argues C.N.’s paternal grandparents are not a suitable placement for
him because (1) they do not approve of her and (2) both will be over seventy
years old when C.N. reaches the age of majority. Lisa, however, does not point
to any specific evidence showing the grandparents do not support her
relationship with C.N. Further, C.N. has made drastic improvements since he
began living with his grandparents. DHS workers reported C.N. was attached to
the grandparents. They also reported that depriving him of the consistency of
structure and medication at the grandparents’ home would be disastrous. We
must conclude C.N.’s placement with his grandparents is in his best interests.
See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring) (“A
child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are now the primary concerns
when determining a child’s best interests.”) In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613
(Iowa 1987) (“The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents
experiment with ways to face up to their own problems.”).
C. Six-Month Extension
Lisa argues the juvenile court erred in refusing to grant her six more
months to complete reunification. Lisa had a year of services without showing
any improvement in the conditions that caused C.N.’s removal. We again find
the State made sufficient reasonable efforts toward reunification. C.N. needs
6
and deserves stability and consistency. He cannot find it with Lisa, and it is
unlikely, given her track record, he will be able to find it with her six months from
now.
See J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 798 (noting a parent’s past performance is
indicative of the quality of care the parent will provide in the future); In re T.B.,
604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000) (“The future can be gleaned from evidence of
the parents’ past performance and motivations.”). The district court did not err in
refusing to grant Lisa six more months.
D. Evidence Admitted
Lisa claims the juvenile court erred in admitting the guardian ad litem’s
(GAL) exhibits A, B, and C. She argues the juvenile court required her to recall
her psychotherapist both to lay foundation to enter a letter into evidence and for
cross-examination. She alleges the court erred by requiring her to comply with
certain rules of evidence, but not requiring the same of the GAL when she
entered exhibits A, B, and C. Thus, she argues, her rights to equal protection
and due process were violated. We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for
abuse of discretion. Jensen v. Settler, 696 N.W.2d 582, 585 (Iowa 2005).
Lisa did not raise her constitutional claims with the juvenile court. We
therefore cannot consider them.
K.C., 660 N.W.2d at 38.
Even if we did
consider them, we find this argument to be unpersuasive. Lisa’s psychotherapist
testified during the first day of trial on March 7, 2007. Lisa’s counsel attempted to
enter the letter from the psychotherapist on the second day of trial, March 29,
2007, nearly three weeks after the therapist’s initial testimony.
The letter
indicated the therapist’s opinion had changed drastically in the interim.
We
7
conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Lisa to recall
the witness for foundational and cross-examination purposes.
As for exhibits A, B, C, without addressing whether the juvenile court
abused its discretion in admitting the documents, we must conclude Lisa
experienced no prejudice as a result of the documents. See In re C.D., 508
N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). Even excluding the documents from our
de novo review, there is ample evidence showing Lisa’s behavior was unstable,
her mental health issues were distracting, her parenting was erratic, and her
ability to put her child’s needs before her own was nearly nonexistent. See id.
E. Failure to Review Transcripts
Lisa argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it refused to
review transcripts of previous proceedings in the case when a different judge was
on the bench. Lisa alleges such a review would have alerted the court that the
paternal grandparents wanted custody of C.N. from the outset of the case. She
argues this information would have caused the court to determine placement with
the grandparents was not in the child’s best interests.
unpersuasive.
This argument is
Lisa points to no evidence indicating the grandparents were
attempting to sabotage her relationship with her child. She points to no evidence
linking the grandparents to her own instability. C.N. was removed due to Lisa’s
inability to parent him. He remains in his grandparents’ custody due not to any
ability they may have to better parent him, but due to Lisa’s inability to offer a
consistently stable environment.
The juvenile court’s ruling is affirmed.
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.
