IN THE INTEREST OF M.R., Minor Child, V.J.L., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-958 / 08-1652
Filed December 17, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.,
Minor Child,
V.J.L., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order that placed custody of her
child with the child’s biological father. AFFIRMED.
Rebecca Ruggero, Bettendorf, for appellant mother.
Jean Capdevila and Jack Dusthimer, Davenport, for appellee father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Benjamin Yeggy of Gomez, May, Schutte, Yeggy, Bieber & Wells,
Davenport, for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
In November 2007, Venessa had a daughter, M.R. 1 On May 9, 2008,
M.R. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.2(6)(n) (2007) due to Venessa’s mental health problems, suicide
attempts, and substance abuse problems. On June 27, 2008, M.R. was taken
out of her mother’s custody and placed in the custody of her maternal
grandmother.2 In July 2008, a paternity test established Max as M.R.’s biological
father. Max immediately took steps to become involved in M.R.’s life.
On September 8, 2008, Max filed a motion for change of custody asking
that M.R. be placed with him. Venessa resisted Max’s petition for change of
custody.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) and the child’s
guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended granting Max’s motion.
After an
evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court placed custody of M.R. with her father,
Max. Venessa appeals, arguing that the juvenile court erred in finding clear and
convincing evidence that placement with Max is in M.R.’s best interests.
Venessa claims that Max has a long history of substance abuse and that the
juvenile court acted prematurely in changing M.R.’s placement.
On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence to support
the juvenile court’s finding that it is in M.R.’s best interests to be placed with her
biological father, Max. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re D.S., 563 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1997) (stating that a party seeking modification of a dispositional order
must show that “a modification is in the best interests of the child.”) Iowa case
1
The child’s legal father has not responded to these proceedings.
M.R. and her three siblings had also been placed with the maternal grandmother from
April 28, 2008, to May 2, 2008. The other siblings are not at issue in this case.
2
3
law establishes a strong presumption that parental custody best serves a child’s
welfare.
Zvorak v. Beireis, 519 N.W.2d 87, 89 (Iowa 1994).
While we
acknowledge that Max has made mistakes in the past, the record shows that he
has made a true commitment to sobriety. He regularly attends AA meetings as
well as a weekly support group. He has consistently complied with the terms of
his probation and has disassociated with individuals who were a negative
influence in his life. While Max has been sober for just over six months, we
agree with the GAL that Max has made a commitment to sobriety.
Max has also shown a commitment to caring for M.R. and, according to
the DHS case worker that evaluated Max, “is currently taking the steps needed to
safely parent [M.R.]” Max has a full-time job and stable housing. The GAL found
that Max’s home was “clean and orderly” and that Max had appropriate toys and
a crib for M.R. The GAL also noted that “it was clear there was a true bond
between [M.R.] and Max.” Max has arranged for M.R. to go to daycare while he
attends work, and his mother is able to provide care while Max attends his
regular meetings. Max has recognized that it is important that M.R. maintain a
relationship with her mother and siblings. The DHS case worker found that Max
cooperated with the DHS and “appears to be placing [M.R.’s] needs above his
own.” Additionally, the record shows that before the hearing, Venessa spoke to
the DHS in a very positive manner about Max and raised serious questions
regarding her mother’s ability to parent M.R. safely.
We find that clear and
convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that placement with Max
is in M.R.’s best interests and therefore 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.
