IN THE INTEREST OF K.B. and S.B., Minor Children, J.M.B., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-826 / 09-1229
Filed October 21, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF K.B. and S.B.,
Minor Children,
J.M.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, Stephen C. Clarke,
Judge.
A mother appeals from the district court order denying her visitation with
her children. AFFIRMED.
Michael Bandy of Bandy Law Office, Waterloo, for appellant mother.
Michael Lanigan, Waterloo, for appellee father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Kirby D. Schmidt, County Attorney, and Erika Allen, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Tammy L. Banning of Tammy L. Banning, P.L.C., Waterloo, for minor
children.
Considered
by
Vogel,
P.J.,
and
Doyle
and
Mansfield,
JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Julie appeals the district court order denying her visitation with her
children, K.B., born in 1996, and S.B., born in 2000. We review this child-inneed-of-assistance hearing order de novo. In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478, 480
(Iowa Ct. App.1995).
The children have been out of Julie’s care since October 2008 due to her
failure to supervise, which resulted in serious emotional harm to K.B. and S.B.
Reasonable services have been offered repeatedly to Julie, yet she has failed to
take advantage of the services or cooperate with the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS). She continues to deny the events that led to the adjudication.
Consequently, in a July 20, 2009 report to the court, DHS concluded that
progress was at a standstill and visitation should not occur until some preliminary
benchmarks were met by Julie.
The district court reviewed past orders, as well as past and current DHS
and guardian ad litem reports, and concluded it was Julie’s own lack of
cooperation that had caused the visits to be suspended. It added,
If the mother can show a change of circumstances, including but
not limited to her full disclosure of her mental health records and
treatment, the court may reconsider these orders upon such a
showing and a showing that the mother is fulfilling her obligations
under the case plan, among which is an ability to protect her
children, which she has not yet been able to demonstrate.
3
On our de novo review, we agree with the district court’s findings of facts,
reasoning, and conclusions, and affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.29(1)(a),
(b), (d), and (e).1
AFFIRMED.
1
We note noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure, requiring the appellant in
a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding to attach the order or judgment from which the
appeal is taken to the petition on appeal. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.201(1)(e)(1)(1).
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.
