IN THE INTEREST OF J.H., K.M.-S., M.H., W.H., and S.H., Minor Children, S.H., Father, Appellant, S.H., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-1024 / 09-1543
Filed December 30, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF J.H., K.M.-S., M.H.,
W.H., and S.H.,
Minor Children,
S.H., Father,
Appellant,
S.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father and mother separately appeal from the juvenile court’s
adjudication/disposition order concerning their children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH
APPEALS.
Cory Goldensoph, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.
David Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Robert Hruska, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Angela Railsback, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
A father and mother separately appeal from the juvenile court
adjudication/disposition order that found the children to be in need of assistance.
Both contend there is not clear and convincing evidence the court’s aid is
required. We affirm on both appeals.
Background.
The family came to the attention of the Department of Human Services in
May of 2009 when allegations of denial of critical care were raised following the
father’s arrest on drug-related charges. Prior to the allegations, the family was
participating in a number of services voluntarily.
Two of the children tested
positive for exposure to illegal drugs. The denial-of-critical-care investigation was
founded as to the father. The father is participating in adult drug court as a result
of his drug-related arrest.
In July the department filed a child-in-need-of-assistance petition alleging
the children were in need of assistance as defined in Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), (f), and (n) (2009). By the time of the October 2 hearing, the
department had prepared a social history of the family for the court. The court
heard testimony from the department social worker who conducted the denial-ofcritical-care investigation, the department case manager who works with the
family, and the father. The court made the following statements of its reasons for
finding the children in need of assistance under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n):
[Mother and Father], I’m entering adjudication because I do
think there is a very real risk of harm to the children based on [the
father’s] use of illegal substances, his addiction, and [Mother], your
ability to provide protection to the children, not your unwillingness
3
to, but ability to, whether that is based on ability to recognize the
drug use or some other reason. . . .
[S.H.] tested positive for marijuana.
I don’t have a
reasonable explanation for that at this point. But with an eighteenmonth-old child that has a stay-at-home mom, I have pretty limited
places to look as to where that exposure would have come from.
In looking at the history here, I see [M.H.] tested positive for
marijuana at birth. And I know that has been several years ago, but
that again goes to the history here that there have been substance
abuse issues for quite a while.
....
I have many, many cases where children have been
removed from parental care because one of the parents has been
using methamphetamine. And that did not happen in your case,
and I think that that is primarily because of the fact that you folks
were honest and cooperative, and the department believes that
they can rely on you to follow through with the safety plan and the
relapse prevention planning in place. And because of that, even
though this is a serious issue regarding safety of the children, they
can remain in your care because we have confidence in your
willingness to follow through with that plan.
. . . The adjudication, I think, is necessary for protection of
the children and we need to have a safety net for that. And I need
to know that if problems develop—And, again, not to be negative,
[Father], but with your long history and where you are at in this
current recovery process, I can’t say with a great deal of assurance
that your worst days are behind you. I hope that they are, and I
certainly hope for your children’s sake that they are, but I can’t say
that you are to the point where I think the children are no longer at
risk, so adjudication will enter.
....
I also like to tell folks in cases where substance abuse is an
issue that time is one of the elements that is important. You can do
everything that you need to do, but we also need to see that over a
period of time and with enough consistency to say, “This is
something that is a real change for this family,” and it will continue
on into the future. And that may well be what we are doing here. It
is not that you are not doing what you need to do, it is that it needs
to be in place for a longer period of time before I can say that
oversight is not necessary by the court.
The written order continued the children’s placement “in the custody of
their parents under the protective supervision of the Department of Human
Services.” Both parents appeal, claiming the court’s aid is not needed.
4
Scope and Standards of Review.
Our review of adjudicatory and dispositional orders is de novo. In re E.W.,
434 N.W.2d 898, 900 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988). We review both the facts and the
law and adjudicate rights anew. In re H.G., 601 N.W.2d 84, 85 (Iowa 1999).
Although we give weight to the juvenile court's findings of fact, we 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.
Merits.
Although the father and mother appeal separately, they raise the same
issue and their discussion of the issue is identical, word-for-word. Therefore, we
will not address their claims separately.
Both parents assert, “There is only a possible need for future aid.” They
contend Iowa Code section 232.96(9) requires the juvenile court to find its “aid is
required” before adjudicating a child to be in need of assistance. They argue the
services they currently receive voluntarily and through the father’s participation in
adult drug court adequately provide for the children’s safety and there is no
current need for the court’s aid.
Iowa Code section 232.96 provides the “permissible parameters of the
juvenile court’s initial ruling” after an adjudicatory hearing in subsections (8) and
(9). In re G.R., 348 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Iowa 1984). These subsections provide:
8. If the court concludes facts sufficient to sustain the
petition have not been established by clear and convincing
evidence or if the court concludes that its aid is not required in the
circumstances, the court shall dismiss the petition.
9. If the court concludes that facts sufficient to sustain the
petition have been established by clear and convincing evidence
5
and that its aid is required, the court may enter an order
adjudicating the child to be a child in need of assistance.
(emphasis added.) The statutory definitions of child in need of assistance found
in section 232.2(6) “reflect a legislative determination that in these circumstances
State intervention in family relations is generally more helpful than harmful.”
G.R., 348 N.W.2d at 632.
In the circumstances before us, we find the aid of the juvenile court
currently is needed to provide a safety net for the children.
The father’s
methamphetamine addiction is the focus of his participation in drug court. The
juvenile court’s focus is the welfare of the children. See Iowa Code § 232.1. We
have long recognized parents with chronic, unresolved substance abuse
problems present a danger to their children. In re J.K., 495 N.W.2d 108, 113
(Iowa 1993). The father has failed to remain clean and sober after prior drug
treatment.
The juvenile court’s aid is required to provide for monitoring the
father’s care of the children and the mother’s failure to recognize his relapse.
Although the family is participating in some services voluntarily, the court’s aid is
required
to
enforce
their
continued
participation.
adjudicatory/dispositional order of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
We
affirm
the
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.
