IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0865

Filed August 17, 2022

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.,

Minor Child,

T.J., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Paul G. Crawford, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals a dispositional review order, contending the court should 

have returned the child to her custody. AFFIRMED.

Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office, Ames, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Jennie L. Wilson-Moore, Conrad, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor 

child. 

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

A mother appeals from a juvenile court dispositional review order, 

contending the court should have returned her son to her custody. As the purposes 

of the dispositional order have not been met and the child could not safely be 

returned to the mother’s custody, we affirm the juvenile court. 

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services 

(DHS) following the mother’s arrest for possession of methamphetamine and 

prescription drugs in March 2021. The child was almost fifteen years old. That 

same month, both the mother and the child tested positive for methamphetamine. 

The mother also tested positive for amphetamines and oxycodone. The mother 

agreed to allow the child to live with the father pending drug test results. The 

mother continued to test positive for drugs, particularly methamphetamine, 

throughout the summer.

The child was formally adjudicated as a child in need of assistance (CINA)

in August 2021, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2021). Custody of 

the child was placed with the father under the supervision of DHS. Since then, the 

mother has struggled with transportation issues, making access to appointments 

and visits difficult. She initially had one supervised visit with the child a month. 

The visits were increased in November to allow two supervised, in-person visits 

and two supervised virtual visits a month. Due in part to issues with transportation, 

the mother has only exercised four in-person visits since November. Such visits 

have not been positive—most visits show a lack of communication and animosity 
3

between the mother and child. The mother slept through the entirety of one of the 

visits. 

The mother expressed that she is attending mental-health therapy. While 

denying her own drug use, she indicated a willingness to participate in out-patient 

substance-abuse treatment. She claims to have consistently tested negative for 

drugs, despite testing positive for drugs until at least October 2021. But none of 

the mother’s claims of treatment or sobriety could be verified because the mother 

failed to sign the required releases to permit her therapist or her probation officer 

to disclose the information. 

The juvenile court held a dispositional review hearing on March 14, 2022, 

at which the mother, father, and a DHS caseworker testified. In the dispositional 

review order, the court continued the CINA adjudication and the child’s custody 

with the father because of the mother’s failure to sign the necessary releases 

pertaining to her mental-health and substance-abuse issues. The court highlighted 

that such releases would provide the court and DHS the information necessary to 

determine when family therapy would be appropriate—an important step before 

reunification could be achieved.

1

 The court stressed the need for positive 

interactions during visits. The mother moved to enlarge, amend, or modify, 

pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), which the court denied. The 

mother appeals.2 

1The juvenile court’s dispositional review order noted the goal remained 

reunification with the mother. 

2The State filed a motion to dismiss the mother’s appeal based on the lack of 

authority cited by the mother. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (“Failure to cite 

authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”). The 

supreme court ordered that the motion to dismiss be submitted with the appeal. 
4

II. Standard of Review

We review CINA proceedings de novo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 

(Iowa 2001). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. Iowa R. App. 

P. 6.904(3)(o). 

III. Discussion 

The mother contends the juvenile court should have returned the child to 

her care because she has “done all that has been asked” of her. In particular, she 

points to her willingness to provide drug tests, which she contends have been 

negative for drugs. She also claims to have adequate shelter and food for her 

child. The mother alleges that the father is turning the child against her, while also

arguing that the child is old enough to self-protect against her deficiencies.3

Iowa Code section 232.103(4) governs modification of dispositional orders. 

See In re K.P., No. 22-0382, 2022 WL 1236764, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 

The mother’s petition on appeal lacks factual detail and any citations to controlling 

law. We acknowledge counsel filed the petition on appeal without the benefit of a 

transcript. And appellate counsel did not represent the mother at the dispositional 

review hearing. Neither relieves counsel of the obligation to comply with the 

appellate rules of procedure. We, however, choose to address the merits of the 

mother’s appeal. See Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 239-

40 (Iowa 1974) (“We have from time to time noted such unprofessional failure can 

lead to summary disposition of an appeal. We are not bound to consider a party’s 

position upon such failure either in a criminal case . . . or a civil case . . . In such 

situations we have generally, as a matter of grace, proceeded with a determination 

of the appeal on its merits, supplying our own efforts the legal research which the 

rules prescribe should be undertaken in the first instance by counsel.” (internal 

citations omitted)). Simultaneously, we urge compliance with the appellate rules 

of procedure to avoid dismissal of these types of petitions. 

3A written motion to modify was not filed by the mother; she disagreed with the 

recommendations of the case plan at the time of the review hearing. The mother’s 

written motion for additional services was held at the same time as the dispositional 

review, but the mother does raise the issues contained in that motion in this appeal. 
5

2022). That section allows a court to modify, substitute, or terminate a 

dispositional order if one of the following circumstances exists: 

a. The purposes of the order have been accomplished and the

child is no longer in need of supervision, care, or treatment.

b. The purposes of the order cannot reasonably be

accomplished.

c. The efforts made to effect the purposes of the order have

been unsuccessful and other options to effect the purposes of the

order are not available.

d. The purposes of the order have been sufficiently

accomplished and the continuation of supervision, care, or treatment

is unjustified or unwarranted.

Iowa Code § 232.103(4).

When a parent seeks the return of a child removed as a result of a CINA 

adjudication, the parent has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence 

that the child will not suffer harm if returned to the home. In re A.Y.H., 483 N.W.2d 

820, 823 (Iowa 1992). We determine the mother has failed to meet this burden. 

The mother does not cite to a statutory ground contained in

section 232.103(4) that she believes warrants the return of the child to her custody.

Given the context of her claim, we focus on subsections (a) and (d), as the mother 

does not allege that the purposes of the order cannot be achieved or that there is 

a lack of alternative means available to achieve those purposes. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.103(4). 

Upon our de novo review, we determine the purposes of the dispositional 

order have not been accomplished and continued supervision is warranted. The 

CINA proceedings began because of the mother’s drug use around the child. 

While the mother claims to have abstained from drugs, she has denied the 

existence of a substance-abuse problem despite multiple positive drug tests early 
6

in the case. Her most recent drug test with DHS was in October. She has not 

signed the necessary releases so DHS can obtain the results of drug tests she 

completed for her probation officer. Similarly, the mother’s claims about her 

progress in mental-health therapy cannot be verified because of the lack of signed 

releases. Based on the record before the court, it is unknown what progress, if 

any, the mother has made concerning substance abuse and mental health. And 

the evidence does not support a finding that the child could safely be returned to 

the mother’s custody. We affirm the juvenile court. 

AFFIRMED.