IN THE INTEREST OF P.S., Minor Child, R.A.C., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-930 / 07-1615
Filed December 28, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF P.S.,
Minor Child,
R.A.C., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee County (South), Gary R.
Nonenan, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from a permanency review order in child in need of
assistance proceedings. AFFIRMED.
Kevin Hobbs, West Des Moines, for appellant father.
Kendra Abfalter, Keokuk, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael Short, County Attorney, and David Andrusyk, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Laura Krehbiel, Donnellson, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
2
PER CURIAM
A father appeals from a permanency review order in child in need of
assistance (CINA) proceedings. We affirm.
Richard and Natasha are the parents of P.S., born in February 2001. P.S.
has resided with his maternal grandmother in Keokuk, Iowa, since 2004. Richard
resides in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
On December 3, 2004, P.S. was adjudicated CINA. 1
A permanency
hearing was held on December 1, 2005, and January 5 and 31, 2006, during
which Richard testified. 2 Following the hearing, the juvenile court ordered P.S. to
remain in the care of his maternal grandmother. The court found reasonable
efforts had been made to provide Richard with services. The court ordered him
to complete a mental health evaluation and parental skills training. The court
also ordered that visitation could occur between Richard and his son subject to
the discretion of the IowaDepartment of Human Services (Department).
Another permanency hearing was held on September 7, 2006.
After
considering the evidence presented at that hearing, the juvenile court again ruled
that P.S. should continue living with his maternal grandmother and that visitation
should continue with Richard according to Department’s discretion.
Richard
1
During the initial CINA proceedings, Richard reported he had no job, no income, and
no assets worth more than $100. After P.S. was adjudicated CINA, Richard filed an
appeal, but then allowed the time for appeal to expire. During June 2005 paternity tests
confirmed Richard is P.S.’s biological father. One month later, the court ordered Richard
to complete a home study. Richard filed another notice of appeal. Our supreme court
dismissed the appeal on November 9, 2005.
2
Richard provided long, confusing, and unresponsive answers to direct questions about
his personal, educational, work, and criminal history. As a result, the juvenile court was
unable to determine what Richard had been doing for the past twenty years.
3
appealed the permanency order. On November 30, 2006, a panel of this court
affirmed the court’s permanency ruling. In our ruling we stated,
Richard has received sufficient services from DHS. It is Richard
himself who has failed to take advantage of them. Though he
expresses a desire to have P.S. placed in his care, he provides
nothing other than demands that we should do so simply because
he is the child's biological father.
We also noted that “Richard has not demonstrated, even at supervised visitation,
that he can perform even the most rudimentary of parenting activities.”
In his current appeal, Richard challenges a permanency review order
entered in this case following a permanency review hearing held on
September 6, 2007. Following that hearing, the juvenile court ruled that P.S.
should remain in the custody and guardianship of his maternal grandmother and
that Richard should have visitation at the discretion of the Department, the
guardian ad litem, and P.S.’s guardian and custodian. The court ordered that
visitation shall take place only in Iowa and that it shall be authorized by the
Department only if it is deemed in the best interests of the child by the
Department, the guardian ad litem, and P.S.’s guardian and custodian.
We review permanency orders de novo. In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 32
(Iowa 2003). We review both the facts and the law and adjudicate rights anew
on the issues properly presented. In re H.G., 601 N.W.2d 84, 85 (Iowa 1999).
We give weight to the juvenile court's findings, but are not bound by them. In re
N.M., 528 N.W.2d 94, 96 (Iowa 1995).
The best interests of the child are
paramount to our decision. Id.
On appeal Richard reasserts the arguments he unsuccessfully made in his
appeal of the permanency order issued by the juvenile court in November 2006.
4
He argues P.S.’s placement with his maternal grandmother is not in his son’s
best interests, the State failed to offer him adequate services, and the State has
failed to prove that P.S. cannot be placed in Richard’s home. Upon our review of
the record, we find no merit in the father’s arguments.
Richard did not appear personally at the permanency review hearing held
September 6, 2007. Although Richard sent a letter notifying the court and his
attorney he planned to appear by telephone, he did not explain why he would not
be able to appear personally. The attorneys for the State and the natural mother
as well as the guardian ad litem objected to Richard testifying at the hearing over
the telephone. The court permitted Richard to listen to the proceedings over the
telephone but did not allow him to testify.
Neither Richard nor his attorney, who was present at the hearing, offered
any evidence at the most recent review hearing. The only witness who testified
at the hearing was the social worker in this case. She recommended that no
changes occur in the court’s current permanency order.
She further
recommended that Richard participate in supervised visitation in Iowa and that
he participate in parent skill development during those visits. She testified that
P.S. was thriving in his current placement and he appears to be emotionally and
physically healthy.
Both the social worker and the guardian ad litem
recommended that P.S. remain in his current custodial placement.
Nothing in the record before us indicates that Richard has taken any
active steps in becoming a parent to his son. See In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829,
831 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“We must reasonably limit the time for parents to be in
a position to assume care of their children because patience with parents can
5
soon translate into intolerable hardship for the children.”). We agree with the
juvenile court that
“[i]n spite of having been given ample opportunities to participate in
services and scheduled visitation [Richard] has done nothing of
substance to advance the interests of his child in this case and
throughout the last year has belligerently defied the efforts of the
court and the Department to involve him in the life of [P.S.].”
Therefore, we affirm the court’s ruling continuing placement of P.S. with his
maternal grandmother.
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.
