Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-04-2024
Case Style:
In the Interest of M.N., a Minor Child, S.B., Mother
Case Number: 24-1006
Judge: Erik I. Howe
Court: District Court, Polk County, Iowa
Plaintiff's Attorney: Polk County Iowa County Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
The mother of one-year-old M.N. appeals from a dispositional order in the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings, challenging the juvenile court's decision the child could not yet be returned to her custody.[1] "We review decisions in CINA proceedings de novo." In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). "While we are not bound by the juvenile court's factual findings, we accord them weight." Id. "Our primary concern is the child[]'s best interests." In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014). After our review, we affirm the dispositional order of the juvenile court.
Under Iowa Code section 232.99(4) (2024), after the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court is required to "make the least restrictive disposition appropriate considering all the circumstances in the case." From least to most restrictive, the court is permitted to enter an order suspending judgment and continuing the proceedings for up to twelve months, Iowa Code § 232.100, allowing the parent to retain custody subject to specific terms and conditions, id. § 232.101, appointing a guardian, id. § 232.101A, or transferring legal custody of the child to the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (the department). The court can only transfer (or keep) the child out of parental custody if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the "child cannot be protected from physical abuse without transfer of custody" or "from some harm which would justify the adjudication of the child as
3
a [CINA] and an adequate placement is available." Iowa Code § 232.102(4)(a)(1)-(2).
In her petition on appeal, the mother argues that while there was an issue or two that may have justified the involvement of the department and the juvenile court with her family, those issues were isolated and are not ongoing. Advocating that "minimally adequate" parenting is all that is required of her, the mother questions whether it was ever appropriate to remove M.N. from her custody.[2] She urges that there is no reason for his continued removal. But the mother's version of the facts are at odds with those found by the juvenile court, with which we agree.
The department became involved with the family in July 2023 when it was alleged that the mother drove intoxicated with M.N. and his then-eight-year-old sibling, M.M.,[3] in the car, but that incident was resolved without referral. The department again became involved in December 2023 after learning that the mother left one-year-old M.N. alone in a car twice that month while she went tanning at a tanning salon. The mother was criminally charged with child endangerment, to which she pled guilty, received a deferred judgment, and was placed on probation for two years. Pointing to a recent Iowa Supreme Court case, the mother questions whether her action of leaving one-year-old M.N. alone in a vehicle during winter was even illegal. See generally State v. Cole, 3 N.W.3d 200 (Iowa 2024) (vacating conviction for child endangerment where mother left five children-ages twelve to five years old-at home sleeping while she went to buy groceries). And she argues that, whether it was illegal or not, she learned her lesson and will not repeat the mistake.
But those arguably isolated incidents of leaving the young child alone in a vehicle are not the only concerns. While it was those incidents that first caused the department to recommend services, the record evidence exposes the mother's problem with excessive alcohol consumption. In May 2023 the mother was arrested for operating while intoxicated and eluding.[4] And it was M.M.'s interview at a child advocacy center (for an unrelated reason) that led to the department's first child-protective assessment in July 2023, which ended without a referral. In that interview, M.M. offered up that after spending the day with his mother at an event at a bar, the mother made him blow into a square "breathing thing" in the front seat of her car so it would start. He described having to breathe into the device a second time while the mother was driving when it started to beep while they were on the road. M.M. reported feeling nervous as his mother drove "crazy" while he and his brother were in the backseat.
But that was not all. When department workers spoke to M.M. in December after the department again became involved, he reported things were not so good at his mother's home. He stated he is required to watch M.N. while his mother sleeps and recounted a time when his mother was drinking beers at home and became too drunk; he could not wake her up when he tried. In other parts of the same report, department workers summarized concerns the mother was frequently intoxicated and that, at times, M.M. had to touch her to ensure she was still breathing. The mother denied having a problem with alcohol. She testified at the disposition hearing that receiving an OWI charge was a single poor decision rather than indication of a bigger problem, and she reported to the person conducting her substance-use evaluation that she consumes alcohol only once every couple months. Yet, the mother continued exhibiting concerning behavior after the children were removed in January 2024.
Outcome: Affirmed
In re M.N., 24-1006 (Iowa App. Sep 04, 2024)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: