IN THE INTEREST OF J.P., H.F., AND R.F., Minor Children, M.A.P., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-355 / 09-0367
Filed May 29, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF J.P., H.F., AND R.F.,
Minor Children,
M.A.P., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Sylvia A. Lewis,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the district court’s permanency order regarding her
three children. AFFIRMED.
Kristin Denninger, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Mark Thompson, Iowa City, for appellee father of J.P.
Zorana Wortham-White, Waterloo, for appellee father of H.F. and R.F.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Janet M. Lyness, County Attorney, and Kristin Parks, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Don Schroeder, West Liberty, for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Malissa appeals the district court’s permanency order entered February
17, 2009, regarding three of her children. She asserts she should have been
given additional time to work towards reunification and that reasonable services
were not offered to her to achieve reunification.
Three of Malissa’s children are the subjects of this appeal: J.P. (born in
1999), R.F. (born in 2000 with cerebral palsy), and H.F. (born in 2002).1 The
Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has been involved with the family
since 2003, mainly due to Malissa’s history of addiction to methamphetamine. In
2007, the children were living with their maternal great aunt, Suellen. While
visiting Malissa in her home, Malissa’s boyfriend struck and injured J.P. DHS
workers then discovered Malissa’s boyfriend was a registered sex offender. As a
result, on January 22, 2008, in a stipulated hearing, the children were
adjudicated to be in need of assistance under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b)
(2007) (parent has physically abused or neglected child) and 232.2(6)(c)
(parent’s failure to exercise care in supervising child).
I. Scope of Review.
We review permanency orders de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; see In re
K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 2003).
II. Best Interests.
Malissa claims it was not in the children’s best interests to enter a
permanency order, with long-term placement with the children’s maternal great
1
Another child resides with his father and one child is deceased. The fathers to the
three children of this case have not appealed.
3
aunt. She asserts the court should have granted her an additional six months to
work towards reunification before entering the permanency order, or in the
alternative, placed the children with her mother.
The children, prior to adjudication, spent a good portion of their lives in the
informal care of their maternal great aunt.
The placement continues and
according to the children’s therapist is a positive and safe placement for the
children. The therapist testified that the instability in the children’s lives of not
knowing they could remain with the great aunt was detrimental and they were in
need of permanency. She stated that it was more important for the children to
have permanency than to give Malissa additional time to work towards
reunification.
As the DHS reported, the aunt “has been the one consistent
parental figure in the lives of the children.” We agree. See In re J.E., 723
N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating children’s
safety and their need for a permanent home are the defining elements in
determining a child’s best interests).
III. Reasonable Efforts.
Malissa next faults the district court for finding that DHS exhausted its
efforts to work towards reunification before the permanency order was entered.
While she claims the current services were inadequate, we note that DHS has
provided a variety of services to Malissa over the course of the past several
years, dating back to 2003. Malissa has a long substance abuse history and
multiple prior founded child abuse reports.
The services offered have been
tailored to assist Malissa in overcoming her difficulties and resolving her unstable
lifestyle such that she could provide a safe home for her children. Substance
4
abuse and mental health counseling have been the primary focus of services, but
progress has been slow and limited. In spite of numerous attempts at becoming
sober,
as
recently
as
September
2008
Malissa
tested
positive
for
methamphetamine. From our review of the record, there does not appear to be a
lack of reasonable services offered by DHS, but rather a lack of compliance and
progress by Malissa, which has stalled the return of the children to her care and
necessitated the permanency order. See In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781
(Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“At some point, the rights and needs of the children rise
above the rights and needs of the parents.”).
We affirm 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.
