IN THE INTEREST OF C.S., Minor Child, J.M.C., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-468 / 09-0683
Filed July 22, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.,
Minor Child,
J.M.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order adjudicating her son a child in
need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Pamela Vandel, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Karen Taylor, Des Moines, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Wayne Reisetter, County Attorney, and Sean Wieser, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Steve Clarke, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Jennifer appeals the order of the juvenile court adjudicating her son, C.S.
(born April 2001), a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2007). We affirm.
I. Background Facts
In approximately February 2008, the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS) received a complaint from an unknown source, alleging that Jennifer was
constantly out partying and using drugs, that drug paraphernalia were lying
around the home and Jennifer’s car, and that C.S.’s room was covered with dog
feces and vomit.
Upon investigation, DHS found no drug paraphernalia and
found dog feces in only one room (not C.S.’s). Jennifer initially denied drug use;
however, a drug test that Jennifer consented to returned positive for cocaine.
Dilution of the sample was also reported. At that point, Jennifer admitted cocaine
use.
The record also reflects that Jennifer has used methamphetamine and
marijuana at an earlier stage in her life.
Jennifer agreed to a safety plan that placed C.S. in the temporary custody
of Jennifer’s mother (C.S.’s maternal grandmother), who was living with them at
the time. One of the safety plan’s provisions required that Jennifer and C.S. stay
in the state of Iowa. Three days after Jennifer signed the plan, Jennifer’s father
(C.S.’s maternal grandfather) picked up Jennifer and C.S. and drove them to
California.
Jennifer’s father is a registered sex offender in California. This relates to
a situation, known to Jennifer, where her father had improper sexual contact with
one of Jennifer’s girlfriends, who was fourteen years old at the time. There are
3
no allegations that Jennifer’s father had any inappropriate contact with C.S.
Jennifer and C.S. stayed in California for approximately two months from late
March to late May 2008.
Jennifer and C.S. returned to Iowa at the beginning of June 2008. The
record also shows that while Jennifer was using cocaine in early 2008, C.S.
missed thirty-four days of school.
Jennifer insists that it was her mother’s
responsibility at that time to get C.S. to school, and that she was unaware of this
situation. However, Jennifer, her mother, and C.S. were all living in the same
house.
For the most part, C.S. has been performing satisfactorily in school
during the 2008-2009 school year, although he has missed an above-average
number of days.
C.S. has been seeing a therapist for anxiety and stress. C.S.’s therapist
testified to concerns about Jennifer’s struggles and anxieties rubbing off on C.S.,
about Jennifer’s potential resumption of drug use, and about Jennifer’s father
being a sex offender. At the time of the adjudication hearing, Jennifer had been
providing clean UA’s, but she had not been following through on substance
abuse treatment and she denied she was a drug addict.
In July 2008, the State petitioned to have C.S. declared a CINA. On
February 10, 2009, the juvenile court adjudicated C.S. a CINA pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2). A dispositional hearing was held on April 21, 2009,
at which the juvenile court confirmed its previous finding that C.S. was a CINA on
the grounds that he was imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of
the failure of the parent to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising
4
him. The court did order that Jennifer would retain temporary legal custody of
C.S., subject to supervised visitation with C.S.’s father. Jennifer appeals.1
II. Standard of Review
We review CINA proceedings de novo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733
(Iowa 2001). We give weight to the district court’s findings of fact, especially
when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them. Id.;
In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990). Our overriding concern is the best
interests of the child. K.N., 625 N.W.2d at 733.
III. Analysis
Jennifer argues that the court erred in finding clear and convincing
evidence that C.S. was in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(c)(2). Under section 232.2(6)(c)(2), we must determine if the child has
suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of the failure of
the child’s parent to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the
child. See L.L., 459 N.W.2d at 494 (discussing that the provisions of Iowa Code
chapter 232 are preventive as well as remedial). We believe the State carried its
burden in this case.
Despite the fact that Jennifer has tested clean of illegal drugs since March
2008, she nonetheless tested positive for cocaine at that time. Jennifer’s mother
testified that Jennifer was not herself during that time period and thus, might
have even been unaware that C.S. was not going to school. Jennifer’s mother
also testified that Jennifer has had periodic episodes of drug use in the past.
1
C.S.’s father was a party to the CINA proceedings, but has not appealed the juvenile
court’s order. C.S.’s father and mother were never married to each other, but are
currently married to other spouses.
5
When that occurs, according to her mother, Jennifer undergoes a personality
change.
Furthermore, Jennifer’s trip to California with C.S., three days after
signing the safety plan, demonstrated a lack of concern for C.S.’s well-being.
(Jennifer justified the trip based on her father’s ill-health, but the juvenile court
found the explanation not to be credible, and so do we.) Upon our independent
review of the record, we also agree with the juvenile court’s observations that
Jennifer has not forthrightly confronted her drug use and has been deceptive on
a number of occasions.
Jennifer references two unreported cases: In re L.J., No. 04-1386 (Iowa
Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2004) and In re W.G, No. 01-1860 (Iowa Ct. App. July 31,
2002).
In these two cases, we found that CINA determinations were not
warranted where there were only isolated instances of alcohol or drug abuse by
the parents, and no evidence of impact on the children. Here, by contrast, there
is evidence that C.S. has already suffered adverse effects from his mother’s
actions.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the juvenile court.
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.
