In the Interest of O.D., C.D., K.D., and T.D., Minor Children ( 2023 )

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.