In the Interest of I.B., Minor Child, K.R., Mother ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0429
Filed May 17, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF I.B.,
Minor Child,
K.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl E. Traum,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court’s adjudicatory and dispositional
orders in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Carrie E. Coyle, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court’s adjudicatory and dispositional
orders in a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceeding, challenging a factual
finding within the court’s orders. “We review CINA proceedings de novo.” In re
J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014). “In reviewing the proceedings, we are not
bound by the juvenile court’s fact findings; however, we do give them weight.” Id.“Our primary concern is the child[]’s best interests.” Id.I.B. was born in October 2016.1 The mother entered into an agreement
with the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) to voluntarily place the child
in family foster care. The child was subsequently placed in the care and custody
of maternal relatives. In November, the State filed a CINA petition.
The voluntary placement agreement expired in early January 2017 after
ninety days. The adjudicatory hearing was originally set for a date prior to the
expiration of the agreement; however, the mother requested a continuance and
the hearing was rescheduled to a date approximately two weeks after the
agreement expired. The mother requested the child be returned to her care, but
DHS disagreed, citing ongoing safety concerns. A few days before the
rescheduled adjudicatory hearing, the State sought an ex parte removal order,
which the court granted.
The mother stipulated to the CINA adjudication at the hearing later that
week. The court subsequently entered an order adjudicating the child CINA and
continuing placement of the child in the temporary custody of the mother’s
1
The mother has two other children who have been removed from her custody and are
the subject of a separate CINA action.
3
relatives. In March, the court entered a dispositional order again continuing the
child’s removal and placement. In both orders, the juvenile court found, “The
child has been removed from the care of the parents since October . . . 2016.”
The mother complains the juvenile court should not have found the child
was removed from her care and custody in October 2016; instead she argues the
court should have found the child was removed when the court entered the ex
parte removal order in January 2017. The mother fears the district court’s factual
finding that removal occurred in October 2016 might affect future proceedings in
this case.
“A case is ripe for adjudication when it presents an actual, present
controversy, as opposed to one that is merely hypothetical or speculative.” State
v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 616 N.W.2d 575, 578 (Iowa 2000). Our rules of judicial restraint
generally preclude appellate review of issues that depend on matters not yet
developed. See id. (noting the ripeness doctrine exists “to prevent the courts,
through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in
abstract disagreements” (citation omitted)). The date of removal does not impact
the CINA adjudication or disposition, but rather, potential future proceedings that
statutorily require a specific amount of time to have passed following the removal
of a child from his or her parents’ custody. Thus, the issue is not ripe for our
review at this time.
Accordingly, we dismiss the mother’s appeal and remand for further
proceedings.
APPEAL DISMISSED.