Court Opinion

ID: 9393514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 15:05:06.818144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.716143
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 23-0386
                                Filed May 10, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF L.F.,
Minor Child,

B.F., Father,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

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

District Associate Judge.

         A father appeals the juvenile court’s permanency review order. AFFIRMED.

         Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro & Kozlowski, LLP, West Des Moines, for

appellant father.

         Teresa M. Pope of Pope Law, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellee mother.

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

General, for State.

         Shannon M. Leighty, Nevada, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

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

BOWER, Chief Judge.

       This appeal involves L.F., an intellectually-limited individual, who has been

adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) since 2018. The parents are

divorced; the child is in the parents’ joint legal custody and in the mother’s physical

care, subject to the supervision of the department of health and human services

(the Department).

       Two years ago, we reversed the juvenile court’s order dismissing these

CINA proceedings, finding “the purposes of the CINA adjudication have not been

accomplished, and L.F. remains in need of juvenile court supervision.” In re L.F.,

No. 21-0002, 2021 WL 1400086, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021).

       One year ago, this court affirmed the juvenile court’s decision not to

terminate the CINA proceedings. In re L.F., No. 22-0749, 2022 WL 2348186, at

*5 (Iowa Ct. App. June 29, 2022) (“Because we do not find much has changed

since our earlier decision and agree with the juvenile court that ‘sustaining the

[permanency] goal and planning for ongoing permanency under the unique

circumstances of this case requires the court’s aid,’ we affirm the juvenile court’s

decision.”).

       A permanency review hearing was held on February 16, 2023. The State

and the Department recommended the case be closed—as they had before. The

father agreed with that recommendation. The mother and the child’s guardian ad

litem (GAL) recommended the case remain open. The GAL made this statement

to the court:

       I understand the Department recommendations as they are not
       providing services other than monthly meetings and a safety plan.
       The Department is recommending case closure since maximum
                                     3

benefits have been reached. I agree with the Department that there
have been no concerns as it relates to the father since this matter
was opened. However, this matter had been previously closed and
the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned that decision finding the safety
plan was a service and that the father could still admit to certain
behaviors without having criminal consequences. I have not been
made aware of the father making any admissions to other behaviors.
I am concerned about the possible trauma to the child with any
anticipated change. We are looking at the argument for case
closure, possible appeal, [a hearing on the mother’s petition for]
modification [of visitation and child support] in May, and [L.F.] turning
18 in December. Any of these hearings could result in a change to
the child’s visitation and living situations. The child is doing very well
at this time with the current arrangements. I do believe it is
appropriate at this time to keep the CINA matter open.

On February 20, the juvenile court found the GAL’s position persuasive:

The GAL’s focus is [L.F.]’s best interests in maintaining the stability
she has in both the mother’s and father’s homes. Maintaining [L.F.]’s
stability in the parental homes is not merely a function of her basic
needs, [L.F.] thrives on the relationships she continues to enjoy with
immediate and extended family in both of these homes. She is
provided a wealth of enrichment opportunities by both parents in
each of their homes. The current situation provides the best
opportunity for [L.F.] to transition to the age of majority later this year.
[L.F.]’s best interests are being served by both parents differently,
but in [L.F.]’s best interests in each of their homes.
         [L.F.] is not removed from either parent. The current
permanency order was entered April 18, 2022, placing legal custody
of [L.F.] with both parents under [Iowa Code] section 232.104(2)(a)
[(2022)]. There is no motion before the court today to terminate the
proceedings        under     section      232.103,     there    are     only
recommendations to close the case. The juvenile court’s jurisdiction
is a function of statute. While the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is
intended to be temporary, a child’s best interests is the prime
consideration of the juvenile court.
         ....
         [L.F.] enjoys a rich and fulfilling life with both of her parents.
This should be protected. While the parents may have substantially
different opinions about [L.F.]’s care, they are able to co-parent her
appropriately in order to continue to provide her a fulfilling life despite
the limiting effects of her special needs. The court finds that [L.F.] is
safe in both homes. Continuation of the court’s order protects [L.F.]’s
ability to enjoy the ongoing benefits of fulfilling communities of family
and friends at both homes. Continuation of the court’s order also
protects [L.F.]’s access to enrichment activities in both homes
                                          4

       provided to her by each parent. To that end, continuation of these
       proceedings will protect [L.F.]’s full access to both homes which is in
       her best interests now and well into the future.

       The father appealed.1 On our de novo review,2 we come to the same

conclusion as the trial court. See In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001)

(noting the court is authorized to terminate a dispositional order “only if ‘the

purposes of the [dispositional] order have been accomplished and the child is no

longer in need of supervision, care, or treatment’” (alteration in original)). In light

of all that has come before, we affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R.

21.26(1)(e) (permitting a memorandum opinion when “[a] full opinion would not

augment or clarify existing case law”).

       AFFIRMED.

1 The State did not file a notice of appeal and informs it will not file a response
defending the juvenile court order given the Department’s position supporting case
closure. The mother has timely responded and we consider her arguments in this
appeal.
2 In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002) (noting standard of review).