IN THE INTEREST OF J.P.L. and J.S.L., Minor Children, M.P., Intervenor, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-694 / 08-1081
Filed September 17, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF J.P.L. and J.S.L.,
Minor Children,
M.P., Intervenor,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Michael R.
Stewart, Judge.
Intervenor appeals from the permanency order returning two children to
the care of their mother. AFFIRMED.
Bradley McCall of Brierly Charnetski, L.L.P., Grinnell, for appellant
intervenor.
Fred Stiefel, Victor, for appellee father.
Jane Odland of Walker & Billingsley, Newton, for appellee mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael W. Mahaffey, County Attorney, and Rebecca Petig, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Terri Beukelman, Pella, for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
J.T. is the mother of J.P.L., who was born in 2000, and J.S.L., who was
born in 2002. A temporary removal order was entered in April of 2007 and the
children were placed in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS). After the State filed a petition alleging the children to be in need of
assistance (CINA), the children’s paternal grandmother, M.P., filed a motion to
intervene. The children were subsequently adjudicated CINA and placed with
their grandmother in the State of Nebraska. A permanency hearing was held in
June of 2008, following which the juvenile court returned the children’s care to
their mother, over the objection of the intervenor. The intervenor appeals from
this order.
Our review of a permanency order is de novo. In re N.M., 528 N.W.2d 94,
96 (Iowa 1995). Although we give weight to the juvenile court’s findings of fact,
especially its credibility determinations, we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App.
P. 6.14(6)(g). The best interests of the children control our decision. Iowa R.
App. P. 6.14(6)(o).
On appeal, the intervenor maintains that returning the children to their
mother’s care would subject them to adjudicatory harm and that the mother has
had more than adequate time to establish her fitness as a parent. Finally, she
claims the court improperly ignored “credible evidence” and “artificially limit[ed]
and cut off” her ability to introduce evidence at the permanency hearing. Upon
our de novo review of the record, we affirm the juvenile court’s order returning
the children to the care of their mother.
3
As an initial matter, Iowa courts recognize a rebuttable presumption that
the best interests of a child are served by giving custody to a natural parent. In
re T.D.C., 336 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Iowa 1983). At the hearing, both the DHS and
the children’s attorney/guardian ad litem recommended the children be returned
to the care of their mother. Social worker Lori Devilder testified that she held no
safety concerns regarding the mother’s care of the children, that the mother was
meeting their health needs, providing adequate food, clothing, and housing, and
that she had been “very cooperative” with services and treatment.
She
speculated that the mother would continue to progress with services in the future.
In-home service provider Beth Van Nevel-Clark similarly opined that the children
could be safely returned to the mother’s care. She found no safety or health
concerns in the home. The CASA volunteer, Bonnie Tozer, in a detailed report to
the court, summarized numerous deficiencies of the mother, and recommended
the children remain in the care of the paternal grandparents. The district court
found it was not in the best interests of the children to remain out of the home as
reunification efforts continued.
Based on the strength of these observations and recommendations of
these various service providers, we believe the juvenile court properly returned
the children to their mother’s care.
As a protective measure, DHS retained
supervisory control, and the mother was to follow “the terms and conditions
prescribed to assure the proper care and protection of the children.” While the
intervenor certainly appears to have provided excellent care to the children, that
is not determinative as to the children’s placement.
“In determining whether
there is clear and convincing evidence that the children cannot be returned to the
4
care of their mother, we are not to engage in a comparison of the mother’s home
with the foster home.” In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987).
Furthermore, we find no error in the court’s decision to place a “time limit”
on the permanency hearing. First, because the intervenor made no offer of proof
as to the additional evidence she would have sought to introduce, we could
conclude she cannot establish prejudice. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.103(a)(2) (offer of
proof necessary to preserve error on ruling excluding evidence). Regardless,
from our review of the record, we note that the intervenor was allowed to call a
number of witnesses, including herself, and to introduce substantial evidence.
Her position appears to have been presented and argued sufficiently for the court
to have been fully apprised of it. Because the juvenile court holds the authority to
exercise reasonable control over the presentation of evidence, so as “to avoid
needless consumption of time,” see Iowa R. Evid. 5.611(a), we are unable to find
any abuse of discretion.
Appreciative of the concerns of the intervenor-grandmother, based on the
danger these children have been exposed to in the past, we nonetheless affirm
the decision of the district court to return the children to their mother.
We
emphasize those portions of the juvenile court order placing expectations on the
mother with the continued involvement of DHS to assure the safety of the
children. See 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).
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.
