IN THE INTEREST OF D.J., Minor Child, D.D.W., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-782 / 09-1227
Filed October 21, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.,
Minor Child,
D.D.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order adjudicating her child as a
child in need of assistance. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR DISMISSAL.
Cory Goldensoph, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Annette Martin, Cedar Rapids, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
A mother appeals from the adjudicatory order concerning her child,
contending there is not clear and convincing evidence that the child is a child in
need of assistance (CINA) as defined by Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2009)
and the court’s aid is not required to protect the child. Upon our review, we
reverse and remand for dismissal.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
D.D.W. is the mother and A.J. is the father of D.J., born February 1999.1
The mother has a long history of involvement with the Iowa Department of
Human Services (Department), including two founded reports in 2005 of denial of
critical care for failure to provide proper supervision to D.J. and the mother’s
other child, not at issue in this appeal. In early 2006, D.J. again came to the
attention of the Department due to allegations that D.J. had been exposed to
marijuana and domestic violence in the mother’s home. Following a hair-stat
test, D.J. tested positive for cocaine. D.J. was removed from the mother’s care
and was adjudicated a CINA in February 2006.
In 2007, the mother made
significant progress, and D.J. was returned to her care. The CINA petition was
dismissed in November 2007.
In approximately May 2008, it was reported to the Department that mother
and the mother’s boyfriend smoked marijuana around D.J. In August 2008, D.J.
was admitted to St. Luke’s Children’s Psychiatric Ward after D.J. threatened
suicide. D.J. made several accusations against the mother including that the
mother was smoking marijuana around D.J., the mother had hit D.J. with her
1
The father does not appeal the juvenile court’s order adjudicating D.J. as a CINA.
3
hand and with belts, and that the mother had made D.J. watch pornographic
videos. D.J. was diagnosed with general anxiety disorder and was prescribed
medication. D.J. refused to return to the mother’s home, and the mother said
that she was done with D.J.
Thereafter, the father filed papers for D.J.’s
involuntary committal. Following a hearing, D.J. was committed to an outpatient
treatment program and was discharged to D.J.’s paternal grandparents’ home.
Because D.J.’s allegations against the mother were not confirmed by the
Department, the family was able to work out alternative placements for D.J.,
voluntary services were in place, a CINA petition was not filed and the child
protective service assessment was closed.
D.J.’s commitment was dismissed by the court in February 2009 due to a
lack of follow through with services. That same month, the family again came to
the attention of the Department after it was reported that the mother had pending
felony charges of child endangerment and driving while barred. It was alleged
that the mother, a barred driver, ran a stop sign and caused an accident trying to
avoid being pulled over for a traffic violation. D.J. was with the mother at the time
of the accident and sustained an injury.
The Department initiated a child
protective service assessment as a result of the driving incident and determined
the report of denial of critical care for failure to provide proper supervision by the
mother was founded.
During the Department’s assessment, the mother reported that D.J. was
living with her and had not been attending counseling. On March 10, 2009, the
State filed a petition alleging D.J. to be a CINA pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.2(6)(c) (child who has or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a
4
result of either mental injury caused by the acts of the child’s parent or the failure
of the child’s parent to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the
child), and 232.2(6)(n) (child who has or is imminently likely to suffer harmful
effects as a result of parent’s mental capacity or condition, imprisonment, or drug
or alcohol abuse).
A contested adjudicatory hearing was held on May 29, 2009. There, the
mother sought dismissal of the petition.
The Department requested D.J. be
adjudicated a CINA. The Department’s ongoing worker testified that in addition
to the car accident incident earlier in the year, the Department sought
adjudication of D.J. as a CINA due to concerns that if there were not court
involvement to oversee the case abuse could happen again and that D.J. may
not have been receiving therapy. The worker also testified that D.J. had not
tested positive for cocaine since D.J.’s last closed case, she did not have any
concerns of about housing or domestic violence, and she was not aware of any
imminent danger that D.J. was in at that time. D.J.’s guardian ad litem took no
position at the time of the hearing, but filed a written statement recommending
D.J. not be adjudicated a CINA “due to stability in housing, clean drug testing on
behalf of [the] mother, commitment order dismissed on [D.J.], and no further child
abuse assessments since February 2009.” The guardian ad litem further stated:
Although undersigned believes the family could benefit from
less chaos in their lives, I do not believe it rises to the level of a
CINA adjudication for this child.
I would be concerned if [the mother] were to continue to
drive with [D.J.] in the car and if there would be further injuries to
the minor child, accidents, or law violations in regard to driving and
the child being present.
5
On June 22, 2009, the juvenile court entered its order adjudicating D.J. a
CINA pursuant to section 232.2(6)(c). The court noted the mother’s car accident
incident and the family’s ongoing pattern of not following through with services.
The court found that since D.J. had returned to her mother’s home, D.J. had not
attended counseling. Although the court noted the mother was employed, her
housing was stable, and there were no current concerns of domestic violence or
drug use in the home, it nevertheless determined that judicial oversight was
required to ensure the mother’s home remained free of drugs and violence and
that D.J.’s mental health needs continued to be met.
On August 5, 2009, a dispositional hearing was held. At the hearing, the
mother informed the court that she was getting D.J. back into counseling, and the
court received the Department’s social history report.
Thereafter, the court
entered its dispositional order ordering that D.J. should remain in the mother’s
custody under the supervision of the Department, as agreed to by the parties.
The court also ordered a case permanency plan be submitted.
The mother appeals.
She contends there is not clear and convincing
evidence that the child is a child in need of assistance as defined by section
232.2(6)(c)(2) and the court’s aid is not required to protect the child.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
Our review of child in need of assistance proceedings is de novo. In re
K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). We give weight to the fact findings of
the juvenile court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but
are not bound by those findings. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
The State has the burden of proving the allegations by clear and convincing
6
evidence. Iowa Code § 232.96(2). “Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence
leaving “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion
drawn from it.” In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002).
III. Discussion.
The court found the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that
D.J. was a CINA pursuant to section 232.2(6)(c). Section 232.2(6)(c)(2) provides
that a CINA
means an unmarried child . . . [w]ho has suffered or is imminently
likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of . . . [t]he failure of the
child’s parent . . . to exercise a reasonable degree of care in
supervising the child.
It is true that a child’s adjudication as a CINA need not await the
occurrence of injury or harm, see In re D.T., 435 N.W.2d 323, 330 (Iowa 1989)
(“[W]e think our temporary removal provisions in [CINA] proceedings are
designed to prevent probable harm to a child and do not require delay until after
the harm is done.”), and that the State has the duty to see that every child within
its borders receives proper care and treatment. L.L., 459 N.W.2d at 494; D.T.,
435 N.W.2d at 329. However, from our de novo review, we do not find clear and
convincing evidence supports finding the child a CINA under section
232.2(6)(c)(2).
Although the mother allegedly drove her car negligently with D.J. in the
car, injuring D.J., the Department’s ongoing worker testified she was not aware of
any imminent danger that D.J. was in at the time of the adjudicatory hearing.
The worker testified that D.J. had not tested positive for cocaine since the
previous assessment, and there were no concerns regarding violence or housing
7
at the time of the adjudicatory hearing. Furthermore, the child’s guardian ad
litem recommended against adjudicating D.J. a CINA. The biggest concern the
juvenile court seemed to have at the time of its adjudicatory order was about
D.J.’s mental health treatment, and at the time of the disposition hearing, the
mother informed the court that she was getting D.J. back into counseling. Given
the Department’s ongoing worker’s testimony that she was not aware of any
imminent danger that D.J. was in at the time of the adjudicatory hearing and the
child’s guardian ad litem’s recommendation that the child not be adjudicated
CINA, we find there was insufficient evidence to support that D.J. suffered or was
imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of the failure of D.J.’s mother
to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising D.J. Furthermore, we find
the court’s aid is not required to ensure D.J.’s mental health needs continue to be
met, as the mother is taking steps to ensure D.J. is being treated. We therefore
reverse the juvenile court’s order adjudicating D.J. a CINA and remand for
dismissal.
IV. Conclusion.
Because we find clear and convincing evidence does not support finding
the child a CINA under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and we find the court’s aid is not
required to ensure the child’s mental health needs continue to be met, we
reverse the juvenile court’s order adjudicating the child a CINA and remand for
dismissal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR DISMISSAL.
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.
