IN THE INTEREST OF D.B.-C. and K.B.-C., Minor Children, H.L.B., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-795 / 07-1551
Filed October 24, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF D.B.-C. and
K.B.-C.,
Minor Children,
H.L.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Stephen C.
Clarke, Judge.
A mother appeals from a district court’s permanency order. AFFIRMED.
Mark Milder, Waverly, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Thomas J. Ferguson, Couny Attorney, and Kathleen Hahn, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Heather Feldkamp of Feldkamp Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for minor
children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
A mother appeals a permanency order that transferred guardianship of her
two children to their maternal grandparents. 1 She argues that the district court
erred in denying her request for a six-month continuance of the permanency
hearing. We affirm.
Heather is the mother of D.B.-C., who was born in 1997, and K.B.-C., born
in 1999. In May of 2006, the children were removed from the custody of their
mother 2 for lack of supervision and abuse, which had resulted in physical injuries
to the children. The children were placed with their grandparents. Subsequently,
the children were adjudicated children in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), & (e) (2005) and custody of the children
remained with the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) with placement
continuing with their grandparents. Heather was offered many services to assist
her to work toward reunification, including family-centered services, mental
health counseling, substance abuse treatment, and supervised visitation.
Although Heather participated in some services, she failed to make sufficient
progress that would allow the children to be safely returned to her care. The
district court held review hearings in January and March of 2007, but each
hearing resulted in a finding that Heather was unable to have the children
returned to her care. In August of 2007, after a permanency hearing was held,
the district court ordered that guardianship of the children be transferred to their
1
It appears from the record that the grandparents are the maternal grandmother and her
husband.
2
The father of both children did not appeal the court’s order. His rights are not at issue
in this appeal.
3
grandparents pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104. The district court also
ordered that visitation between Heather and the children be allowed at the
discretion of the grandparents.
Heather contends that the district court should have deferred the
permanency hearing for six months because she had made improvements in the
prior six months.
We review permanency orders de novo.
In re K.C., 660
N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 2003). We review a motion for continuance under an abuse
of discretion standard. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
“Denial of the motion to continue must be unreasonable under the circumstances
before we will reverse.” Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of the
children. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(o).
At the time of the permanency hearing, the children had been out of their
mother’s care and custody for over a year. According to the DHS case manager,
Heather had not made any progress toward regaining custody of the children
since the prior review hearing and visitation had been increased to fully
supervised. Although Heather has not had a positive drug test since January of
2007, the last drug test Heather submitted to in June of 2007 resulted in an
abnormal test result and was considered an altered sample. The DHS worker
testified that she had concerns over both Heather’s substance abuse and mental
health problems and an ongoing relationship with an inappropriate male, who
had a history of criminal activity and ongoing drug use. Heather maintained this
relationship knowing that it was an obstacle to regaining custody of her children,
because it prevented her from moving forward in overcoming her own problems.
Additionally, the DHS worker testified that she did not believe the children would
4
be able to return to Heather’s care when considering Heather’s track record of
failing to put the children first. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 645 (Iowa 2006)
(“[W]e look to the parent’s past performance because it may indicate the quality
of care the parent is capable of providing in the future.”). The most recent report
from the children’s guardian ad litem stated that the children “need the stability of
knowing they will stay [with their grandparents] and will have the structure and
protection that home provides them.” The children have been in the care of their
grandparents for over a year, where they have a safe and stable environment
that has allowed them to make significant progress. They should not be forced to
wait for Heather to become a responsible parent. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489,
494 (Iowa 2000). “At some point, the rights and needs of the [children] rise
above the rights and needs of the parents.” In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781
(Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
Additionally, it is in the children’s best interests that
guardianship is transferred to their grandparents. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 802
(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 find
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Heather’s motion for a
continuance and affirm the permanency order.
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.
