IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22

- 1261 Filed December 7, 2022

IN THE INTEREST OF C.C., and J.C., Minor Children, M.B., Mother, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens , Associate Juvenile Judge.

A mother challenges juvenile court intervention and the court’s finding her children are in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.

Patricia J. Lipski, Washington, for appellant mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Jonathan Willier, Centerville, for appellee father. Samuel K. Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
childr en.

Considered by Bower, C.J. , and Greer and Badding, JJ.2

BOWER , Chief Judge

. A mother challenges juvenile court intervention ; the court’s finding that her children , J.C. ( born January 2015 ) and C.C. ( born April 2016 ) , are children in need of assistance (CINA) ; and the children’s plac ement with their paternal grandfather. On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence the children would be imminent l y likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of the mother’s failure to
exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the children should they be
returned to her care . We affirm the finding the children are CINA as defined in Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2022)

. 1 The department of health and human services (DHHS) became involved with the mother and her two children the evening of March 3, 2022 , when the mother reported J .C. had disappeared after being left outside in the cold to play. J .C. was eventually located some distance from the family home without a coat
and taken to the law center

. When the mother arriv ed at the law center , her demeanor was in consistent with what occurred, a s she was quick to anger and just as quick to calm down. Law enforcement were co ncerned about the mother’s initial lack of cooperation, her heightened emotions, and her “pinpoint” pupils. The mother tried to leave with the children, but officers were able to keep her there and
contacted D H HS. The on

- call DHHS w orker , Sunny Allison , arrived and noted the
mother did not interact with the children; rather, she left t hem to be supervised by

1 Section 232.2(6)(c)(2) define d a CINA as 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. ” A statutory reorganizatio n moved the provision for the adjudication of a child in need of assistance to a new section , with this ground for adjudication now found at Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b) ( Supp. 2022).3

officers at the law center. Allison felt the mother’s variable emotions and behaviors suggested either substance use or a mental

- health concern. Th e mother expressed to law enforcement and Allison that she did not know why anyone was concerned about J .C. 2 She would not allow Allison to visit the family home for a safety check and would not consent to drug testing. After several hours, the mother d id agree to a safety plan that temporarily place d the children with their paternal grandfather. Kathy Blazina , the child protection worker , contacted the paternal grandfather a few days later, and the grandfather reported the children were doing
well . He also stated he and his son , the children’s father , had discussions about the father taking the children back to the father’s home in Alabama. DHHS did not know if there was an existing custodial order and did not offer any legal advice.
The f ather did come to Iowa and took the children home to Alabama. DHHS
asked him to return the children after a custodial order from 2017 in Texas was presented and determined to be in place. Despite promises to do so, the father
did not return the children. A temporary removal order was entered on March 31. The father reported he was financially unable to return the children ; he was eventually charged and arrested for violation of the custodial order

. On April 6, Blazina and the grandfather flew to Al abama to r eturn the children to Iowa. At the May 4 and 18 CINA adjudication hearing s , Blazina testified that while at the airport arranging to take custody of the children, she received a call from the

2 Allison later learned J.C. has a learning disability and had been left outside supervised only by the younger C.C.4

mother. She told the mother what had transpired and that she was on her way back to Iowa with the children. Blazina stated she had had appropriate conversations with the mother at her home in Iowa , but this telephone conversation left her concerned about the mother’s mental health or su bstance use. The mother said she was in Kansas and was on her way to Alabama to take custody of J.C. and C.C. Yet, she would not believe the children were in Alabama and maintained the children had never left Iowa. Blazina testified she completed her ch ild abuse investigation and , based on her assessment of the family and the allegations , found a denial of critical car e and lack of supervision. The ongoing case was then reassigned to DHHS social work
case manager Sydney Weldon

. Weldon met with the mot her on April 8 and noted the mother appeared to be very confused about the juvenile court’s ex parte removal order and the circumstances surrounding the children being placed with their paternal grandfather. Weldon had a phone conversation with the mother on April 15 to discuss having an interaction with the children. The mother advised she did not need to arrange for visits because she has a custodial order and the children had not been removed by court orde r and hung up. The mother did participate in a visit on April 26 , and Weldon had a phone
conversation with her before th e visit during which the mother became very upset. Later, during the mother’s visit with C .C. , the mother told the service provider she did not intend to allow the child to return to the paternal grandfather’s home. The provider contacted Weldon , who came to the home with the court’s ex parte order
in hand. As Weldon approached, the mother got up from where she was sitting5

with the c hild, went inside the house , lock ed the door , and refused to open it. Law enforcement was called , and they forced their way into the home and assisted Weldon in taking custody of the child . Weldon was concerned when C.C. showed
no emotion al response to t he situation. The mother was taken into custody on a charge of interference with official acts.
At the May 4 adjudicatory hearing , Weldon testified t he mother had not cooperated in efforts to schedule visits and had been unreachable since the April 26 visit. On May 18, Weldon testified she continued to have concerns about the mother’s substance use or mental health. Weldon stated she attempted to offer in

- home services but the mother is difficult to contact. The mother did not testify , though s he filed a letter alleging the children were illegally removed from
her care or kidnapped and asked for a dismissal of the CINA proceedings and that the children have no further involvement with services. On June 1, t he juvenile court found the children we re at imminent risk of adjudicatory harm if returned to the mother’s care , adjudicated both children as CINA, and confirmed the ex parte removal order . The court also found the least restrictive alternative for the children was for DHHS to have legal cust ody with placement in foster, relative , or other responsible adult care. The July 14 dispositional order continued that placement decision. On appeal, the mother maintains she does not use drugs or alcohol , or have mental

- health conditions which result in the children receiving inadequate care. She alleges the State has not made reasonable efforts to prevent the children’s removal and “provided little to no information and no reunification services to the mother for nearly three weeks.” She contends s he did not see or speak to the6

children for more than a month , and she did not know whether the children were safe and cared for. The mother asserts she is willing to participate in voluntary
services so the juvenile proceedings are unnecessary and should be dismissed. We review equity proceedings de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We give weight to the court’s factual findings, though we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). “The most im portant consideration in any CINA case is the best interests of the child [ren] .” In re D.D. , 653 N.W.2d 359, 362 (Iowa 2002). At some point after seven - year - old J.C. was outside with five

- year - old C.C. supervising , the mother realized J.C. was missing an d called the police. Because she was uncooperative in giving information , law enforcement d i d not know how long the child had been missing. A concerned citizen called the police after seeing J.C. wandering around alone several blocks from home. It was c old , and J.C. had
no coat. After the police found the child, they took him to the law center and called
the m other. Considering the mother’s telephone c alls and her behavior when she came to the law center, the police were hesitant to return the child to her. She was uncooperative and initially would not give her name. The police were concerned she was under the influence of a substance or had serious mental

- health issues and called DHHS to assess whether the child was safe in the mother’s care. The mother was no t cooperative with the DHHS worker either but eventually agreed to a safety plan placing the children with their paternal grandfather. She left the children before the grandfather arrived.
The mother maintained no problem exist ed with her parenting and would not consent to drug testing or a safety inspection of the home. She refused to participate with the preparation of social history , insisting the children had not been7

adjudicated CINA; she p ersists in her be lief the children have been illegally removed from her care. She has not participate d in the offered services. See In

re H.R.K. , 433 N.W.2d 46, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (noting “ requirement that the parents acknowledge and recognize the abuse before any m eaningful change can occur is essential in meeting the child ’ s needs ”); see also In re A.B. , 815 N.W.2d 764, 777 (Iowa 2012) (noting father failed to acknowledge his drug use despite strong evidence to the contrary)

. We, like the juvenile court, find clear and convincing evidence supports a finding J.C. suffered harmful effects as a result of the mother’s failure to provide appropriate supervision. The evidence shows DHHS has attempted to provide
services , but the mot her has either rejected those offers o r made herself unavailable to participate in them. Her current assertion that she will participate in voluntary services carries little weight. The children would face adjudicatory risk if returned to the mother’s ca re at this time ; continued removal is necessary to ensure the children’s safety and is in the children’s best interests. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.