In the Interest of J.S., J.S., and J.S., Minor Children, B.S., Father ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 15-0475
    Filed July 9, 2015
    IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., J.S.,
    and J.S.,
    Minor Children,
    B.S., Father,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Fowler,
    District Associate Judge.
    The father appeals from an order placing his child with the child’s paternal
    grandmother. AFFIRMED.
    Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
    General, Michael Walton, County Attorney, and Julie Walton, Assistant County
    Attorney, for appellee.
    Martha L. Cox, Bettendorf, for mother.
    Dana L. Copell of Law Office of Dana L. Copell, Davenport, for child.
    Timothy Tupper of Tupper Law Firm, Davenport, guardian ad litem for
    child.
    Considered by Tabor, P.J., McDonald, J., and Goodhue, S.J.*
    *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
    2
    MCDONALD, J.
    This is the second time this family and this proceeding has come before
    this court.   In the prior case, the father appealed an order adjudicating his
    children, Je.S., Ja.S., and Ju.S., in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code
    section 232.2(6)(c)(1) and (c)(2) (2013) and the dispositional order placing Je.S.
    in foster care. See In re J.S., No. 14-1014, 
    2014 WL 4938012
    , at *2 (Iowa Ct.
    App. Oct. 1, 2014). This court affirmed the adjudication and disposition orders.
    See id. at *3-4. The evidence supporting the adjudication and disposition orders
    is set forth in the prior decision and need not be repeated here. In short, the
    children suffered from severe emotional distress, including suicidal ideation,
    caused by the parents’ volatile, contentious, and argumentative relationship.
    After the appeal in the first case was concluded, the State filed a motion to
    modify disposition and visitation with respect to child Je.S. Independent of the
    State’s motion to modify disposition, review of the disposition order was
    necessary because Je.S.’s placement with the foster care family was set to end.
    The foster family reported to the Iowa Department of Human Services (“IDHS”)
    that they were “worn out” by the father’s harassing emails and vague threats and
    no longer wished to provide foster care for the child. The foster family’s report
    regarding the father’s conduct was consistent with other reports received.
    Specifically, evidence adduced during the disposition review hearing showed the
    father continually harassed IDHS employees and Je.S.’s therapist regarding
    minutiae related to this proceeding without focusing on his own behaviors. At
    hearing on the matter, the State recommended the child be placed with her
    3
    paternal grandmother rather than returned home.       The child also requested she
    be placed with her paternal grandmother rather than returned home. The child
    did not wish to have any further contact with her father because of his past
    behaviors. The juvenile court concluded the permanency goal for Je.S. should
    remain reunification with the family. The juvenile court also concluded the best
    way to achieve the permanency goal was to place the child with the paternal
    grandmother, require continued therapy and other services for the family, and
    require the father and Je.S. reinitiate communication, progressing from electronic
    communication to, hopefully, in-person visitation.
    The father filed an application for interlocutory appeal, which the State
    resisted. The supreme court determined the order appealed from was a final
    order for the purposes of this appeal and transferred the matter to this court. The
    mother also sought appellate review of the same order. The supreme court
    dismissed the mother’s appeal for failure to file a petition on appeal within fifteen
    days of filing her notice of appeal. On appeal, the father contends the juvenile
    court should have continued placement of Je.S. in foster care rather than with his
    own mother. The basis for his argument is that he does not like his mother and
    believes that placement with her will interfere with reunification efforts. Indeed,
    there is a no-contact order prohibiting the father and his mother from having
    contact with each other.
    We review the juvenile court’s order de novo. In re J.S., 
    846 N.W.2d 36
    ,
    40 (Iowa 2014). Our primary concern is the child’s best interests. See 
    id.
     The
    requested change of placement here constituted a request for modification of the
    4
    disposition order. See In re Leehey, 
    317 N.W.2d 513
    , 515 (Iowa Ct. App. 1982).
    “[The] party seeking a modification of the custody provisions of a prior
    dispositional order must show the circumstances have so materially and
    substantially changed that the best interest of the child requires such a change in
    custody.” In re C.D., 
    509 N.W.2d 509
    , 511 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). The father
    does not contest the evidence establishing a material and substantial change in
    circumstances. The child’s current placement cannot continue because of the
    father’s behavior toward the foster family.
    In determining disposition, the juvenile court is required to reach the “least
    restrictive disposition appropriate considering all the circumstance of the case.”
    
    Iowa Code § 232.99
    .       The code sets forth possible dispositions in sections
    232.100 through 232.102, from least restrictive to most restrictive. Suspending
    judgment is the least restrictive alternative. See 
    Iowa Code § 232.100
    . Transfer
    of legal custody and placement away from the parent is the most restrictive. See
    
    Iowa Code § 232.102
    . Within section 232.102 several alternatives are provided,
    including placement with another parent, relative, or suitable person; placement
    with a child-placing agency, facility or institution; or placement with IDHS. See
    
    Iowa Code § 232.102
    (1)(a)(1)-(3).      Our supreme court has interpreted these
    sections to favor placement with a relative over placement with a non-relative.
    See In re N.M., 
    528 N.W.2d 94
    , 97 (Iowa 1995). However, because the best
    interests of the child must be the primary concern, the district court is not
    required to order placement with relatives over other alternatives. See, e.g., In re
    5
    T.H., No. 02–1844, 
    2003 WL 21543837
    , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 10, 2003)
    (affirming placement in foster care over placement with grandmother).
    The father makes no claim that Je.S. can be returned to his care. He
    instead argues “Je.S. should have been placed in a local foster home so that
    regular visits can be facilitated between the father and daughter.” As the juvenile
    court noted, although placement with a foster family may allow Je.S. to reside
    locally, there is no guarantee that she would be placed with a foster family in the
    same area. Furthermore, the issue giving rise to the modification—namely, the
    father’s conduct toward the foster family—would be likely to reoccur if Je.S. was
    placed with another foster family in the area. See In re D.C., 
    436 N.W.2d 644
    ,
    645 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (noting a parent’s past conduct is a good indication of
    how the parent will behave in the future). The record is rife with evidence of the
    father’s harassing behavior toward the foster family, the child’s therapist, and
    IDHS employees. Finally, the father concedes he has not had visitation with
    Je.S. since November 2013 because the father rejected the visitation
    arrangement suggested by Je.S.’s therapist.
    We conclude Je.S.’s placement with her paternal grandmother is in the
    child’s best interest, and we affirm the juvenile court’s order. The child requested
    to be placed with her paternal grandmother. While the father and his mother
    appear to have no relationship, there is no evidence she would interfere with
    reunification efforts. The juvenile court’s order specifically instructed that the
    father and daughter are to resume supervised communication via telephone and
    digital conferencing, progressing to in-person visitation. The juvenile court also
    6
    specifically instructed the family to continue with services to facilitate
    communication and reunification. We are confident IDHS will monitor this family
    and provide the appropriate services.
    The “goals of chapter 232 [are] to provide for the child’s welfare and
    promote placement with parents or relatives.” N.M., 
    528 N.W.2d at 97
    . Thus,
    the home of a relative is considered less restrictive than placement in a private
    agency, facility, or institution or placement with IDHS. See 
    id.
     This interpretation
    is in harmony with federal regulations, which require states to consider “giving
    preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining a
    placement for a child.” 
    42 U.S.C. § 671
    (a)(19). Given the foregoing, we affirm
    the order of the juvenile court.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-0475

Filed Date: 7/9/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021