Court Opinion

ID: 9389948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:04:46.179239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.725306
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 23-0013
                               Filed April 26, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF O.D., C.D., K.D., and T.D.,
Minor Children,

J.D., Father,
       Appellant,

A.D., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen,

District Associate Judge.

      A mother and father of four children appeal the district court’s adjudication

of their children as in need of assistance. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

      Kelsey Knight of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant father.

      Nicole S. Facio of Newbrough Law Firm, L.L.P., Ames, for appellant mother.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

      Shannon M. Leighty of the Public Defender’s Office, Nevada, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

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

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

      A mother and father of four children born in 2012, 2017, 2019, and 2019

appeal the district court’s adjudication of their children as children in need of

assistance under Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b) and 232.96A(14) (2022).

Because adjudication may affect subsequent proceedings, we will address both

grounds. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Iowa 2014).

      Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b) requires the State to prove the parents

failed “to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child.”

Section 232.96A(14) requires the State to establish the parents suffered “from a

mental incapacity, a mental condition, imprisonment, or drug or alcohol abuse that

results in” inadequate care to the child or an imminent likelihood of inadequate

care. We will address both provisions together.

      The mother first became involved with the department of health and human

services in 2011 based in part on her drug use. Her parental rights to a child not

involved in these proceedings were terminated. See In re A.N., No. 11-0757, 2011

WL 3689165, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2011) (noting parents’ histories of “drug

use” and the mother’s “relapse to methamphetamine use”).

      Seven years later, both parents of the children involved in this proceeding

were named in two founded child abuse assessments, the first “for drug use” and

the second for “dangerous substances and a denial of critical care.”           The

department implemented a safety plan that required the father to stay away from

the home. The father failed to abide by the order and remained in the home. The

mother tested positive for methamphetamine.
                                          3

       In   2022,   the    department    again      investigated   the   parents   for

methamphetamine use. The caseworker asked the mother to submit to a hair stat

drug test. She refused. Two or three days later, the mother went to a drug-testing

site of her choosing. She tested negative for methamphetamine on a urine test.

A department employee testified the provider she used had “different parameters”

than the employee was used to dealing with, the mother “did this on her own,” and

the test was taken “four days subsequent to her request.” Another employee

testified the general drug-detection period of a urine test for methamphetamine

was “[t]ypically 48 to 72 hours,” and a three-day delay “very well could be” outside

the detection period.

       Around the same time, the father was arrested following a traffic stop that

uncovered “a pound of marijuana and a half [] pound of methamphetamine.” The

district court ordered the children removed from his custody but denied a request

to have the children removed from the mother. The department reported she was

“capable of parenting the children in an appropriate manner” but there were

concerns she might be “using illegal substances,” which, if true, “would essentially

leave the children without a proper caregiver [and] supervision and place them at

risk of harm.”

       In   adjudicating    the   children    in    need    of     assistance   under

section 232.96A(3)(b), the district court stated:

              [T]he statute should be construed liberally and with the end
       toward preventing harm. The parents have a long association with
       drugs leading to criminal convictions and serious criminal allegations
       that have resulted in the father being jailed [for approximately three
       months]. [The mother] has had her parental rights to another child
       terminated over drug issues. The mother is struggling to provide for
       the children’s supervision and stability. She has been able to do so
                                         4

       thus far but the future is tenuous for these children. . . . The mother
       has had to put in a significant amount of work just to make minimal
       improvements to the habitability of the home. The father’s criminal
       activity means he was not supervising the children by a reasonable
       parent standard. His continued jailing means he has been in no
       position to supervise them . . . and is unlikely to be able to do so
       anytime in the foreseeable future. . . . Thus, the children are
       imminently likely to suffer harm (physical, mental, emotional and/or
       social).

As for the adjudication under section 232.96A(14), the court stated: “Again, the

father’s criminal activity and subsequent jailing are the salient facts. The children

have received adequate care but the tenuousness by which the mother has been

able to provide for them is hardly assured.”

       On our de novo review, we agree with the court’s reasoning. With respect

to the mother, we recognize the children were receiving adequate care at the time

of the adjudication hearing.    But the mother’s past drug use and her recent

circumvention of the department’s drug testing protocol lead us to conclude the

children were at imminent risk of receiving inadequate care.

       We affirm the district court’s adjudication of the children as in need of

assistance.

       AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.