IN THE INTEREST OF S.M. and C.M., Minor Children, M.M., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-253 / 09-0293
Filed May 6, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF S.M. and C.M.,
Minor Children,
M.M., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the district court’s denial of his request to modify the
permanency plan. AFFIRMED.
Charles Biebesheimer of Stillman Law Firm, Clear Lake, for appellant
father.
Randy Johannsen, Sheffield, for appellee mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Brent Symens, County Attorney, and Dan Wiechmann, Jr., Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Larry Johnson, Iowa Falls, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Mark was addicted to methamphetamine and marijuana for more than
twenty years. He has two children whose welfare was affected.
The State initiated child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings in 2006. The
children were placed with Mark’s mother and, subsequently, with their maternal
grandparents. In the intervening months, Mark’s urine tested positive for the
presence of methamphetamine.
As a result, the district court issued a
permanency order transferring guardianship and custody of the children to the
maternal grandparents with continued placement in their home. The court also
ordered the department to provide Mark with visitation at its discretion.
Mark participated in inpatient and outpatient drug treatment programs and
regularly visited his children. In 2008, the district court held a review hearing at
which Mark requested that the department work towards reunifying him with the
children. The district court denied the request stating:
[The maternal grandparents] have provided this placement
for the Children. The Court does not believe that it would be
appropriate at this time to modify the permanency goal and attempt
a reunification between these Children and their father. The Court
believes that this would be unduly disruptive to the Children and
that the Children are best served by having a stable, safe
placement with adequate structure and supervision.
Six months later, Mark requested additional visitation and a modification of the
permanency plan. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the
request to modify the permanency plan and left visitation at the discretion of the
department. By this time, the children had been in the care of their maternal
grandparents for almost two years.
3
On appeal, Mark contends the children should have been returned to his
custody. “[O]ur responsibility in a modification of a permanency order is to look
solely at the best interests of the children for whom the permanency order was
previously entered.” In re A.S.T., 508 N.W.2d 735, 737 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
While parental change is part of the focus, “the overwhelming bulk of the focus is
on the children and their needs.” Id.
The record supports Mark’s contention that he worked hard to address his
addictions. At the permanency modification hearing, he testified that he had
been sober for twenty-three months and, to the best of his knowledge, had met
all the department’s expectations. The department caseworker agreed that Mark
followed through with services and did not show any “behavioral indicators” of
drug use.
Mark’s employer and the children’s mother also vouched for his
sobriety.
Mark’s significant progress was not in vain. Because of it, he was allowed
regular, unsupervised visits with his children, including weekend and summer
overnight visits.
The department also authorized weeknight access, if Mark
wished to take the children out for dinner. While the district court did not grant
his request for alternate weekend and additional summer visitation, the court also
did not deny this request, leaving it to the department’s discretion. There was no
indication that the department had previously exercised its discretion arbitrarily.
On our de novo review, we believe the children’s best interests were
served by these visits, which the department was free to increase, combined with
the court’s designation of the maternal grandparents as the children’s permanent
caretaker. The children wanted regular contact with their father. At the same
4
time, they needed a stable home. As the department’s caseworker noted, the
agency had been in and out of the children’s lives since 2001 and they needed to
know that their present home would be their permanent home. She opined that
there was “no reason to cause any more instability for these children by moving
them again.” We concur with this assessment.
We affirm the district court’s denial of Mark’s request for a modification of
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.
