Court Opinion

ID: 9411310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 15:06:09.443845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.880387
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 23-0410
                               Filed July 26, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF V.G.,
Minor Child,

STATE OF IOWA,
     Appellant,

COLE J. MAYER,
     Guardian ad Litem-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher,

District Associate Judge.

      The State and guardian ad litem appeal a juvenile court order dismissing a

child-in-need-of-assistance petition. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick (until withdrawal) and

Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant State.

      Cole J. Mayer of Des Moines Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines,

attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child

      G.G., Des Moines, self-represented appellee mother.

      Scott L. Bandstra, Des Moines, for appellee father.

      Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.
                                           2

BADDING, Judge.

       Two-year-old V.G. has cystic fibrosis—a progressive genetic disease that

will eventually lead to her death.      Although there is no cure for the disease,

specialists in cystic fibrosis have prescribed therapies for the child that will slow its

progression. But V.G.’s parents resisted some of those therapies, which led to the

child being hospitalized for two weeks in August 2022.

       Before she was discharged from the hospital, the child was removed from

her parents’ custody. The State then filed a petition alleging that she was a child

in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.96A(5) (2022). The juvenile

court returned the child to her parents in February 2023 and dismissed the State’s

petition the next month. The State and the child’s guardian ad litem appeal. Upon

our de novo review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.     Background Facts and Proceedings

       V.G. was born in 2020 and diagnosed with cystic fibrosis several weeks

later. Cystic fibrosis is caused by a mutation in a gene for the chloride channel.

The mutation results in a thick mucus layer on the lungs. The mucus gets stuck in

the airways and can cause infections. V.G. suffers from the “double delta” F508

variation which, because of mucus plugs, blocks her pancreas from producing

enzymes to absorb the fat in her diet.

       Since her diagnosis, V.G. has been treated by pediatric pulmonologist

Dr. Alladdin Abosaida—the director of the cystic fibrosis center at Blank Children’s

Hospital. V.G. has appointments at the center every three months, during which

she is seen by a multidisciplinary team that includes a pulmonologist,

gastroenterologist, dietician, physical therapist, respiratory therapist, and social
                                          3

worker. This team developed a care plan for V.G. that was to include the following

daily therapies: (1) “[t]wo 30-minute vest treatments per day when well and four

30-minute vest treatments per day when ill” with a properly fitted vest to help loosen

and clear the thick mucus that can build up in the lungs;1 (2) nebulizer treatments

with prescribed medications, including a three-percent sodium chloride solution

and Pulmozyme, a “mucolytic agent that breaks up and thins mucus”; and

(3) pancreatic enzyme supplement capsules to improve the absorption of vital

nutrients. The center also requires a chest x-ray every year with annual labs, along

with a chest “CT at one year of life and every other after that,” and a

“Sputum/Throat Culture every 3 months” at clinic visits. And once V.G. turned two

years old, the center recommended that she start a medication called Orkambi that

results in “less viscous mucus, less infections, less exacerbations.”

       Despite these clear recommendations, the parents have been difficult to

work with during their time at the center according to Dr. Abosaida:

       They don’t want to do whatever we recommend, they refuse
       treatments, they always look for [a] different approach, which I
       encourage people to look at. If there’s anything outside what we
       recommend, I would like to discuss it and I just—no matter what you
       do, no matter how you explain it, no matter how much time you spend
       with them, they don’t want to listen to our recommendations.

These difficulties led to a report to the Iowa Department of Health and Human

Services in May 2021 that the parents were failing to provide V.G. with adequate

medical care. That report, and another that followed in November, were not

confirmed. During this time, V.G.’s weight was an issue, dipping to a body mass

1 Dr. Abosaida described the vest as a “shaking machine or oscillator” that
dislodges mucus from the airways so the patient can cough it up and keep the
airways clear.
                                          4

index just above the third percentile in October. A letter from the center about

V.G.’s condition, which was admitted as an exhibit, explained that the Cystic

Fibrosis Foundation recommends that children with the disease “reach a weight

for length of the 50th percentile by 2 years of age (after age 2 a [body mass index]

of 50% or above).” Dr. Abosaida said that a body mass index “at 50 or above” is

the “magic number” for cystic fibrosis patients because “nutrition is ammunition for

them. They can fight infection, they can fight the inflammation,” and increase their

lung function. V.G.’s body mass index has historically been below that threshold,

leading to several hospitalizations during her short life.

       The parents’ displeasure with the center, and Dr. Abosaida in particular,

came to a head during a contentious three-month checkup in March 2022. At that

checkup, the parents refused to engage with the providers who were there to see

V.G.   Dr. Abosaida was able to examine V.G., during which he noted some

abnormal lung sounds. He recommended a chest x-ray, both “as part of [her]

annual checkup and also to evaluate her lungs due to” the abnormal findings.

Dr. Abosaida also told the parents that the center’s pediatric gastroenterologist

was there to see V.G. “and to go over her weight gain issues and C. difficile

infection,” which had been recurrent since a hospitalization in October 2021 for

failure to thrive and “MRSA pneumonia.” The parents left before meeting with the

gastroenterologist and refused the chest x-ray because V.G. had one in October.

Given V.G.’s condition, and the center’s discovery that her parents had not refilled

her Pulmozyme prescription since October, a social worker at the center made a

report to the department for denial of critical care. The department conducted a

family assessment, which did not result in any recommendations for services.
                                         5

       In May, the family began emailing the center to schedule V.G.’s three-month

checkup. But because they had not completed the required chest x-ray, the center

would not schedule the appointment. The parents accordingly sought care from

Callie Williams, a nurse practitioner with a doctorate in pediatric nursing practice.

Though she had impressive credentials, Williams had never treated a cystic

fibrosis patient before and was unfamiliar with many of the recommended

treatments. She said the purpose of the parents’ appointment with her in July was

to obtain a throat swab for V.G. The swab was positive for pseudomonas, a

bacterium in the lungs that “can accelerate the progression in cystic fibrosis and

cause lung damage.” According to Dr. Abosaida, “when kids at this age—typically

when they do treatments and keep their airway clearance, you have less chance

of getting [p]seudomonas. But if you don’t do treatments and a lot of thick mucus

in the airways, then you have a higher chance of acquiring [p]seudomonas.”

       Williams contacted Dr. Abosaida with the results, and he recommended that

the parents take V.G. to the emergency room for possible admission into the

hospital. The parents did that, but the emergency room physician noted that while

V.G. had a cough, she was not having trouble breathing, her vitals were stable,

and a chest x-ray was reassuring. So, after consultation with the center, the

emergency room physician decided against hospital admission in favor of treating

V.G. with oral antibiotics. According to his notes, the parents were “upset and

shared that they feel like the pulmonology clinic wants [their] daughter to die and

they are abusing her.”

       After the July emergency room visit, the center tried to schedule a follow-up

appointment with V.G., which the parents refused. Instead, they obtained a referral
                                          6

from V.G.’s primary care provider, advanced registered nurse practitioner Sarah

Lee, to the cystic fibrosis center at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics—

the only other such center in Iowa. In an undated letter, Lee noted that while the

parents “have always been receptive to my advice,” she has “advised them to

continue to take her to the Cystic Fibrosis clinics for follow up to prevent severe

disease and extend [V.G.’s] life.”

       The child was seen at the University of Iowa in August. An email from

Dr. Rebecca Weiner, the pediatric pulmonologist at the university, to the center’s

manager at Blank described her appointment with V.G.’s mother as “pretty

malignant”:

       She felt they were being targeted to find anything wrong. . . . The
       first sentence out of her mouth was “we wanted to see if we wouldn’t
       be abused here like we were at Blank.” She said that you guys
       refused to “give her a visit” and refused to “give her a culture and
       such.” Dad was mainly quiet in the corner. It was a hard visit, it was
       very hard to have a useful conversation with her as she was playing
       the blame game.

       Dr. Weiner outlined a few important points about her visit with the family,

including that the “therapies Blank has recommended are standard and the same

I would advise.” She also expressed concerned with V.G.’s weight, noting her

“[g]rowth is horrible.”   Dr. Weiner recommended switching to “weight based

enzymes,” stating the parents were “wildly underdosing by trying to estimate grams

of fat.”2     A similar recommendation had been made by the pediatric

gastroenterologist at Blank.

2 Dr. Abosaida explained the difference between the two methods:

       [I]f it’s based on weight, you calculate the dose and you tell them, for
       example, you take three pills before each meal and you take two pills
                                         7

       Less than a week after their appointment at the University of Iowa, the

parents brought V.G. to the emergency room at Blank with a worsening cough and

weight loss.    The child was admitted for cystic fibrosis exacerbation.         On

admission, her pediatric gastroenterologist noted “that her weight had dropped

over the last months and . . . was very below the growth chart with a weight for

length at the 2%.” He emphasized that the parents should be dosing her enzymes

by weight rather than the fat content of her meals, but they again refused.

       In the medical notes that followed V.G.’s admission, multiple providers at

the hospital documented the parents’ hostile response toward their treatment

recommendations. One example, among many, was a note from a nurse about a

week into the child’s hospitalization:

               [The mother] stated that she will no longer allow nurses or
       respiratory therapist in the room to do treatments other than IV
       antibiotics. Mom states that she will no longer push her call light to
       allow staff to observe her giving the enzymes and that she will do it
       on her own because we are lying about doses given. She also stated
       that she will be giving her own respiratory treatments and that she
       will no longer use their vest and will do pulm cup treatments instead.

       Because the parents refused to implement the recommended treatment for

V.G., another report was made to the department before she was discharged from

the hospital. When the investigator consulted Dr. Abosaida, he worried about

whether the child “would receive adequate treatment upon discharge, based on

        before snacks. But you cannot exceed, for example, 20 pills a day.
        So you have limits, you have a plan, easy.
                And then the fat content, you have to see what’s in the meal,
        how much fat in the meal, you have to measure it, you have to be
        really close to accurate. And then based on that you calculate the
        amount of enzymes they need.
According to Dr. Abosaida, the problem with calculating by fat content for children
is that children often don’t finish their meals, resulting in a skewed enzyme dosage.
                                         8

history and the parents continuing to argue with providers while inpatient at the

hospital.” Dr. Abosaida told the investigator that V.G. would “not die immediately

if she does not receive therapies as prescribed, but she could survive for another

6 months to 3 years, dying a slow death. . . . [S]he will lose weight, have bacteria

further colonize in her lungs, and have slow respiratory failure over time.”

       The report was founded and, at the end of August, V.G. was removed from

her parents’ custody and the subject of a petition to adjudicate her as a child in

need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.96A(5). She was placed with a

relative, where the parents were able to see her every day and participate in her

medical care. By November, V.G.’s body mass index was almost at the fifty-

percent mark. But the parents still deviated from some of the therapies. A medical

record from that month noted the mother commented that “[s]ometimes [V.G.] does

not want to do [the] vest as she would rather be playing with others, so on those

occasions they will do hand clapping.” And the parents kept dosing the child’s

enzymes by the fat content of her meals instead of her weight.

       In February 2023, after a series of hearings on the child’s removal and

adjudication, the juvenile court returned V.G. to her parents’ custody, finding she

would not “be placed in imminent harm, provided that we have some services in

place to ensure that she continues to have the care that she’s been provided since

she was removed.” A few weeks later, the court dismissed the State’s adjudication

petition, ruling:

              Since the temporary removal, the parents have continued to
       provide care for the child, including her nebulizer treatments,
       medication management, medical appointments and providing
       enzymes. The parents have a fundamental right to care for their
       child.   While questioning the cystic fibrosis medical staff’s
                                         9

      recommendations, they were not “unwilling or unable to provide such
      treatment.” They continued to try to schedule appointments for the
      child after receiving no response or having appointments canceled
      by the Blank clinic. Admittedly, there was a significant breakdown of
      the parents and medical staff relationship. Dr. Abosaida did not
      believe the parents were doing enough in their care of the child, and
      the parents did not believe Dr. Abosaida and the Blank clinic were
      doing enough in its care of the child. The parents chose to seek
      additional treatments and alternative options, some of which were
      recommended by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, that Dr. Abosaida
      so heavily relied upon. They also sought holistic remedies to ease
      the child’s symptoms and reported observing the benefits therefrom.
      The child’s response to COVID, which was not known to
      Dr. Abosaida at the time, more than likely attributed to the child’s loss
      of weight and some deterioration of her condition.[3]
             . . . . The parents have remained cooperative and have
      followed the recommendations of the Department. . . . The parents
      have not changed the manner of care for the child since the child
      was removed from their home. The child has gained weight and is
      doing well. The parents have demonstrated a willingness and ability
      to ensure the child is getting care to address her incurable disease.

      Both the State and the guardian ad litem appeal from this ruling, which was

stayed by order of our supreme court on the State’s emergency motion.4

II.   Standard of Review

      We review child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings de novo. In re J.S., 846

N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014). Though we give weight to the fact findings of the

juvenile court, we are not bound by them. Id. Thus, “our review is not a rubber

stamp of what has come before.” In re J.W., No. 14-0515, 2014 WL 3749419, at *1

3 As the State points out, medical records from Blank and the University of Iowa

noted the child tested positive for COVID-19 at the end of July. None of the
providers linked that positive test to her condition in August when she was
hospitalized. In fact, the parents told the emergency room physician who saw V.G.
before her admission that she had recovered from COVID-19.
4 The supreme court’s order allowed the child to remain in her parents’ custody

under the protective supervision of the department during the appeal.
                                          10

(Iowa Ct. App. July 30, 2014). The most important consideration is the best

interests of the child. See J.S., 846 N.W.2d at 40.

III.   Analysis

       We start our analysis by recognizing that “[n]ormally, there is no justification

for the State’s interference in the private relations of a family or for the State’s

examination of the judgment of parents in making decisions concerning the well

being of their children.” In re K.M., 653 N.W.2d 602, 607 (Iowa 2002) (citing Troxel

v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68–69 (2000)). “[P]arents’ constitutionally protected

authority over their children includes the right to make decisions regarding health

care.” Maxine Eichner, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 205, 242 (2016) (citing Parham v.

J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1977)). Yet this authority is not absolute. See K.M., 653

N.W.2d at 608. “[W]hen parents abdicate their responsibility to properly care for

their children,” the State must “intercede and provide the necessary care.” Id. But

at what point does the State’s duty to ensure “that every child within its borders

receives proper care and treatment,” trump the right of the child’s parents to make

medical decisions for their child? In re A.M., 856 N.W.2d 365, 376 (Iowa 2014)

(citation omitted).

       Under Iowa Code section 232.96A(5), our legislature has determined that

point is reached when a “child is in need of medical treatment to cure, alleviate, or

prevent serious physical injury or illness and whose parent, guardian, or custodian

is unwilling or unable to provide such treatment.” The State has the burden to

prove this ground for adjudication by clear and convincing evidence. See Iowa

Code § 232.96(2).
                                          11

       On appeal, the State claims that it met its burden because the evidence

showed V.G. is “clearly in need of a number of specific, consistent, daily medical

treatments to address her cystic fibrosis and her parents had been unwilling or

unable to provide the necessary treatment until” the department and the juvenile

court became involved. The guardian ad litem echoes this claim, pointing out: “The

main issue of this case is whether or not the parents were unwilling to provide [the]

necessary care and treatment.”

       The parents focus on that issue as well, arguing that they did provide their

child with medical treatment. The problem, however, is that the treatment they

provided was not what the pediatric cystic fibrosis specialists agreed was required

to prolong V.G.’s life. Cf. In re M.R.R., No. 10-1996, 2011 WL 4378037, at *6 (Iowa

Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2011) (“Making a decision to give one’s child medication and/or

treatment may find the parents faced with weighing the differing opinions of

medical experts.”); In re D.J., No. 06-0625, 2006 WL 1751269, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App.

June 28, 2006) (reversing juvenile court order that authorized eye surgery for a

child over his mother’s objection because of the “physicians’ uncertainty and their

unwillingness to offer an opinion without further examination”). Those specialists—

at the only two cystic fibrosis clinics in Iowa—recommended the same standard

treatments for the child: (1) vest treatments with a properly fitted vest; (2) nebulizer

treatments with a three-percent sodium chloride solution and Pulmozyme;

(3) pancreatic enzyme supplement capsules dosed by weight; (4) starting the

Orkambi medication at age two; and (5) annual chest x-rays. The parents resisted

each of these, in part because of perceived side effects from the treatments and

V.G.’s reaction to them.
                                         12

       The effectiveness, invasiveness, and risks of proposed interventions should

be considered, along with the seriousness of a child’s medical condition, in

“balancing the parents’ fundamental interest in directing the upbringing of the child

with the state’s interests.” In re I.S., 199 N.E.3d 1130, 1150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022);

see also M.R.R., 2011 WL 4378037, at *6 n.16 (comparing the decision whether

to vaccinate a child for certain illnesses with decisions involving a “child who may

die of a disease for which there is a treatment”).        “The more effective the

intervention, the heavier the weight that will be placed on the state’s side of the

scale; the more invasive the procedure and the more risks posed by the

intervention, the lighter the weight placed on the state’s side of the scale.” I.S.,

199 N.E.3d at 1154. “The linchpin in all cases discussing the ‘best interests of a

child,’ when a parent refuses to authorize medical care, is an evaluation of the risk

of the procedure compared to its potential success.” Newmark v. Williams/DCPS,

588 A.2d 1108, 1117 (Del. 1991). Here, the evidence showed the risks of the

recommended treatments were minimal compared to their benefits. See id. at

1120 (“Courts have consistently authorized state intervention when parents object

to only minimally intrusive treatment which poses little or no risk to a child’s

health.”).

       First, against Dr. Abosaida’s recommendation, the parents obtained a vest

that was too big for V.G. Because of its large size, the vest’s oscillating pods

landed on V.G.’s abdomen rather than her lung fields, meaning it was not effective

in dislodging the mucus in her airways. The parents also admitted they were not

administering the prescribed amount of vest treatments at home, which was

apparent from her stay at the hospital in August when she was “crying and
                                         13

screaming every time they put the vest on her.” They preferred to use alternate

airway clearance methods authorized by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, like hand

clapping. The mother points to a snippet from the foundation’s website, admitted

as an exhibit at the hearings, that states no form of airway clearance techniques

“was shown to be superior to another form.” But she ignores the part that says the

choice of technique should “be individualized to the patient, as patient-specific

factors may make one form . . . superior to another for the individual patient.” The

individualized form prescribed for V.G. was a “properly fitting vest.”

       Second, the parents were not consistently using the three-percent sodium

chloride solution and Pulmozyme medications that were to be administered

through V.G.’s nebulizer. In place of the sodium chloride, the parents were taking

V.G. to a salt lounge.5 While Dr. Abosaida was ambivalent about that therapy, he

testified “it cannot replace the medical treatments.” He was also adamant about

the need for Pulmozyme, the “only FDA approved mucolytic agent that breaks up

and thins mucus,” as was Dr. Weiner at the University of Iowa. The parents did

not want to use that medication because they said it caused lung bleeds. There

was no evidence in V.G.’s medical records, however, that she ever suffered from

any lung bleeds. And Dr. Abosaida testified he had “never seen Pulmozyme cause

bleeding directly to someone at her age or even older.” Neither Dr. Abosaida nor

Dr. Weiner would prescribe Mucomyst, an alternate medication the parents wanted

5 At some points in the    record, the parents claimed the three-percent sodium
chloride solution was out of stock. But they had been given instructions on how to
dilute a higher concentration that was available.
                                         14

to use, because data showed that “it does not work” and carries a risk of

bronchospasms.

       Third, the parents refused to dose V.G.’s required pancreatic enzyme

supplements by her weight rather than the fat content of her meals. Dr. Abosaida

testified that while parents can choose between the two approaches, both of which

were acceptable by the standards of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, “we want

results, we want to see [body mass index] head in the 50th percentile. And if you

don’t, we need to change strategies.” When V.G.’s body mass index dropped to

three percent, Dr. Abosaida said that was because “she had mal-absorption, she

needed enzymes, she needed the proper dose of enzymes that can help her

absorb the food that she eats.”      He accordingly recommended weight-based

dosing, as did the pediatric gastroenterologist and Dr. Weiner, who believed the

parents were “wildly underdosing [V.G.] by trying to estimate grams of fat.” Yet,

even after V.G.’s hospitalization, the parents insisted on dosing her enzymes by

the fat content in her meals. See In re J.A., No. 21-1853, 2022 WL 468715, at *5

(Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2022) (affirming adjudication under renumbered

section 232.96A(5) where it was undisputed the child “needs prescribed medicine

for his life-threatening asthma” but the parents unilaterally reduced his dosage).

       Fourth, the parents refused to start V.G. on Orkambi, which Dr. Abosaida

described as “one of the best things that happened in cystic fibrosis in the last five

years.” The mother objected to it because she thought it had high levels of fluoride

that could cause “brain problems.” However, Dr. Weiner told the parents that

Orkambi was not associated with any neurologic side effects. The treatment the

parents wanted instead, a technology called “CRISPR/Cas9,” was “still at the
                                          15

bench research [stage], not even at clinic trial.” Dr. Abosaida said the research is

ongoing and “might take 20, 30, 40, 50 years, who knows.” With a progressive

disease like cystic fibrosis, Dr. Abosaida testified “every minute counts.” See In re

L.T., 494 N.W.2d 450, 453 (Iowa 1992) (affirming adjudication where a child’s

mother refused “to consider the treatment service which [the child] now requires

above all else”).

       Fifth, the parents pushed back on obtaining chest x-rays for V.G.

Dr. Abosaida said annual x-rays were “very important” for the child’s care because

they help monitor progression of the disease and the presence of mucus plugs.

An x-ray from months earlier would not show “how bad is her disease right now,”

According to Dr. Abosaida. They also refused Dr. Weiner’s request for an x-ray in

August, just before V.G.’s hospitalization, after she noted abnormalities in the

child’s examination. Like Dr. Abosaida, Dr. Weiner said that made it “difficult for

[her] to treat [V.G.] adequately.” See id. (affirming adjudication where a child’s

mother refused “to cooperate in extending to [the child] the care she needs”).

During the juvenile court proceedings, the parents expressed concern about the

amount of radiation the child had been exposed to in her young life. But when

asked about that concern, Dr. Abosaida explained the benefits of x-rays for

children with cystic fibrosis outweighed their risk, noting that the radiation in chest

x-rays “is very, very low.”

       The parties agree that the child’s disease is a serious medical condition that

will progressively worsen as she ages. Cf. M.R.R., 2011 WL 4378037, at *6

(finding there was not “clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile

court’s findings that the child was in need of medication to alleviate death or other
                                         16

serious consequences”). Dr. Abosaida testified that people with cystic fibrosis

used to die in their twenties and thirties. But now, “with all these therapies we

have, the life expectancy . . . is 53 years old.” The therapies, however, have “to

be executed as is.      You cannot alter it, there’s no way.”     When V.G. was

hospitalized in August, Dr. Abosaida testified that V.G. was not on track for that

extended life expectancy because she was not getting the proper treatments at

home. He explained: “You have to do everything you have, you have to use all the

tools available to . . . slow the progression. And if you don’t do that, then people

don’t do well with [cystic fibrosis].” Dr. Weiner said the same, telling the parents

“that adequate nutrition, and adequate treatment of pulmonary ailments (such as

exacerbations, pseudomonas infection, etc.) will affect her overall health and how

long [V.G.] lives. Adequate care and standard of care treatments will prolong her

life.”

         On this record, we find clear and convincing evidence that the parents were

“unwilling or unable to provide” the recommended treatment for V.G.’s disease and

the court’s aid is required to make sure that treatment is administered. See Iowa

Code §§ 232.96(9), .96A(5). In reaching this conclusion, we do not doubt the

parents’ love or concern for V.G. As the State said in the closing paragraph of its

petition on appeal:

         We are not here to pass judgment on V.G.’s parents. We are here
         to ensure she is provided proper medical care going forward, so she
         can grow and thrive as best as possible given her cystic fibrosis
         diagnosis. The best way to achieve that end is to adjudicate her a
         child in need of assistance and thereby continue [the department]
         and juvenile court oversite of her vulnerable condition.
                                      17

      For these reasons, we reverse the juvenile court’s ruling dismissing the

State’s petition to adjudicate V.G. a child in need of assistance under

section 232.96A(5) and remand for adjudication and further proceedings.

      REVERSED AND REMANDED.