IN THE INTEREST OF E.J.H., Minor Child, T.J.H., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-417 / 07-0784
Filed June 27, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF E.J.H.,
Minor Child,
T.J.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the adjudication of her son by the district court as a
Child In Need of Assistance (CINA). AFFIRMED.
Cory Goldensoph, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Nicholas Scott, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Richard Mitvalsky of Gray, Stefani & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for
appellee father.
Ryan Tang, Cedar Rapids, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
T.H. appeals the adjudication of her three-year old son, E.J.H., by the
district court as a Child In Need of Assistance (CINA). Upon our de novo review,
In re M.A.F., 679 N.W.2d 683, 684 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004), we affirm.
E.J.H. has been in the care of his mother since his birth in April 2004.
However, the mother has a long history with the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) as her older children were removed from her care for lack of
supervision, physical abuse, and denial of critical care.
In April 2005, DHS
received a report that the mother was living with a registered sex offender, who
has a history of abusing young children. DHS also had ongoing concerns over
the condition of the home, the child’s lack of cleanliness, and the mother’s
association with people not well-known to her.
A prior CINA petition was
dismissed on June 14, 2006, after the mother cooperated to remedy the situation
and upon the parties’ belief that E.J.H. was safe in her care. However, later that
same day the mother tested positive for cocaine. The mother refused to allow
DHS involvement in her life, so a CINA petition was again filed. Following a
contested hearing in April 2007, the district court adjudicated E.J.H. a CINA
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to
parent’s failure to exercise care in supervising child). The court left E.J.H. in his
mother’s care due to her cooperation with DHS and acceptance of protective
services. The mother appeals the adjudication.
The mother argues that clear and convincing evidence does not support
E.J.H.’s CINA adjudication. The State must prove the allegations of the CINA
petition by clear and convincing evidence, Iowa Code § 232.96(2), which means
3
evidence that leaves “no serious or substantial doubt as to the correctness of the
conclusion drawn from it.” In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). Much
of the evidence presented at hearing focused on the ongoing nature of DHS’s
involvement with the mother and this child.
She has been offered and
participated in services on and off since mid-2005 to address many of the same
issues that remain of concern in this case: cleanliness of the home and of the
child, safety of the child, the mother’s untreated substance abuse, and exposing
the child to inappropriate people, such as the mother’s paramour who is a
registered sex offender. The DHS provider testified that she would not expect a
parent that had cooperated and successfully participated in services in the past
to repeatedly require DHS intervention for the same issues. E.J.H.’s mother,
however, does not appear to have internalized the necessary skills to cope and
maintain her progress after DHS supervision is ended and the CINA case is
dismissed. The record demonstrates a cycle of the mother’s cooperation with
DHS and her ability to alleviate immediate concerns, but only when she is
compelled to do so. When the structure provided by DHS and the services are
ended, the mother falls back in her old habits, exposing the child to adjudicatory
harm.
As always, our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re
E.H., 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998). As noted during the hearing, DHS’s
main concern is E.J.H.’s safety. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006)
(Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating children’s safety and their need for a
permanent home are the defining elements in a child’s best interests).
We
4
conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports adjudication, the
adjudication is in the child’s best interests, and affirm.
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.
