Opinion ID: 2042112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Temporary Removal.

Text: The original CINA order, entered in 1989, placed Robbie in his father's custody, subject to protective supervision by DHS. DHS personnel informed the juvenile court on April 5 and 6, 1990, that it was unable to fulfill its obligation of protective supervision. The reasons given were that R.F. was gone most of the time and Jim and Tammy, the people with whom Robbie was living, were uncooperative and had physically abused Robbie. On April 6, the court ordered the immediate removal of Robbie and set a hearing for April 23, 1990, for the purpose of determining whether the dispositional Order should be modified by transferring custody for the purpose of family foster care placement or a group foster care placement. No formal application was made for the April 6 order, and no advance notice was given to R.F., who complains that he was thus denied due process. Iowa Code section 232.103(1) provides: At any time prior to expiration of a dispositional order and upon the motion of an authorized party or upon its own motion as provided in this section, the court may terminate [dispositional] order and discharge the child, modify the order, or vacate the order and make a new order. Section 232.103(3) provides that [a] hearing shall be held on a motion to terminate or modify a dispositional order except that a hearing on a motion to terminate an order may be waived upon agreement by all parties. Reasonable notice of the hearing shall be given in the same manner as for adjudicatory hearings in cases of juvenile delinquency as provided in section 232.37. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of section 232.50. It is apparent that this statute does not expressly allow for the summary removal of a child pending modification or termination of a CINA order, as was done here. It clearly contemplates that notice and hearing will precede any modification of the order. Iowa Code section 232.78, on the other hand, does provide for summary removal. But it provides that it may be implemented only on grounds specified in the statute. None of these grounds was found to exist in this case, and the State does not claim that the summary removal rests on section 232.78. The issue remains whether section 232.103 permits it. R.F. argues that there is no statutory authority for ex parte removal of a child under either section 232.78 or 232.103, and that the court's action here deprived him of due process. R.F. immediately confronts the problem of preservation. We find no record of his raising this issue in district court. Moreover, we believe that, while notice and hearing are required for a modification or termination of a CINA order under section 232.103, In re Blackledge, 304 N.W.2d 209, 213 (Iowa 1981), the April 6 proceeding was not a modification hearing. We believe it is implicit in the power of the juvenile court in monitoring its prior CINA orders to temporarily, even summarily, remove a child pending a hearing on the modification. In other words, we do not believe that Iowa Code section 232.78 provides the only authorization for summary removal when a child is already under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under a CINA order. Here, the April 6 action by the juvenile court was not to modify the dispositional order but only to temporarily care for the child until the modification hearing could be held. As to the validity of the notice and hearing of the May 14 modification hearing, it is uncontested that R.F. was given notice of the hearing and given an opportunity to appear, albeit in a rather unconventional way. When the modification matter was reached for hearing on April 23, pursuant to the April 6 order, R.F.'s counsel had not received a copy of the child abuse report. Therefore, after the State presented its evidence, R.F. moved for a continuance to allow him to examine the abuse report and prepare his defense. The modification hearing was continued to May 14, and R.F. appeared at that time with his attorney and challenged the proposed modification. R.F. does not contend that the hearing of May 14, which led to the final order of modification, was not preceded by adequate notice and an opportunity to appear. We believe he was accorded due process.