Opinion
23-2095
03-06-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF E.K., Minor Child, A.D., Mother, Appellant.
Shannon M. Leighty of Public Defender's Office, Nevada, for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Patrick C. Peters, Ames, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals a child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication.
Shannon M. Leighty of Public Defender's Office, Nevada, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Patrick C. Peters, Ames, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.
CHICCHELLY, JUDGE.
A mother appeals the adjudication of her four-year-old as a child in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b) and (14) (2023). Because we find the State established the statutory grounds for adjudication and the court's aid was necessary to enforce services, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In the early morning hours of August 18, 2023, the mother was arrested due to her strange behavior. The mother was hanging out at a local bar in Ames, Iowa with four-year-old E.K. in tow. While there, E.K. was observed standing on top of a pool table, violently swinging the overhead lamp and narrowly avoiding hitting her head. E.K. later wandered around the bar, going behind the counter, while the mother went inside the bathroom. Eventually, the mother and E.K. were asked to leave after they were found at around 1:00 a.m. sleeping on the pool table. Once outside, the mother wandered "far away from [E.K.]" while E.K. slept on a street bench. The mother was seen "dancing provocatively" and "singing in the middle of the street" away from E.K. That night, the temperature was approximately fifty degrees outside, and E.K. was wearing a T-shirt and shorts. Police responded and, after observing the mother to not be making sense, determined that the mother was "under the influence of an unknown substance while in the sole caretaker role of [E.K.]." She was charged with public intoxication, child endangerment, and possession of marijuana. E.K., who had soiled herself and slept on the floor of the police station, was removed from the mother and placed into the custody of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (Department).
E.K. was adjudicated a Child in Need of Assistance in November 2023. The mother challenged the adjudication, arguing the State did not meet its burden and that the court's aid was not necessary. In December, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing and declined to dismiss the adjudication. The mother appeals, reasserting the same arguments as below.
II. Review.
"We review child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings de novo." In re D.D., 955 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Iowa 2021). While we give weight to the court's fact findings, we are not bound by them. Id. "Ultimately, our principal concern is the best interests of the child." In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017).
III. Statutory Grounds for Adjudication.
The mother contends the State did not meet its burden by establishing the statutory grounds for adjudication or that the court's aid is necessary. See Iowa Code § 232.96(8). The juvenile court adjudicated E.K. under section 232.96A(3)(b) and (14), and the mother challenges both statutory grounds. We address each in turn because each ground may have lasting impact on any additional proceedings. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Iowa 2014) ("The grounds for a CINA adjudication do matter.").
A. Failure to Exercise a Reasonable Degree of Care.
Under Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b), a CINA adjudication is permissible when "[t]he child has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects" based on the parent's inability "to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child." In plain words, "we have found [harmful] effects established when there was harm to a child's physical, mental, or social well-being or such harm was imminently likely to occur." J.S., 846 N.W.2d at 41-42. Upon our own review, we find clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that E.K. was imminently likely to suffer harmful effects. The mother failed to properly supervise E.K. on August 18. In fact, E.K. spent that night sleeping on a pool table, an outdoor street bench, and then a police station floor. During the times that E.K. was awake, she was often alone as her mother wandered away from her or danced in the street. While the mother claims there is no evidence that E.K. was ever in any danger, this is not true. The mother offered photo exhibits of the area, which show its close proximity to the roadway, drinking establishments, and other hazards. Repeatedly, our courts have appreciated the risks associated with children near traffic. See In re J.S., 427 N.W.2d 162, 165 (Iowa 1988) (concluding parents failed to supervise children playing outside in the street); In re R.E., No. 12-0360, 2012 WL 1612495, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. May 9, 2012) (interpreting "incidents where the children are allowed to cross the street without proper supervision" as "dangerous"); see also In re D.T., 435 N.W.2d 323, 331 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating children in need of assistance when children were observed "play[ing] unsupervised in the street"). This is to say nothing of the small child being subjected to cold temperatures outside in the middle of the night while wearing a T-shirt and shorts instead of at home in her bed at a reasonable hour.
The mother challenges the evidence against her, first arguing E.K.'s maternal grandmother is the primary caregiver and that her own behaviors were not illegal. But she fails to explain how this absolves her. A child's "parent" for purposes of the Iowa Code is defined as their "biological or adoptive mother," but it does not include parents whose rights have been terminated. Iowa Code § 232.2(44). Because the mother's rights have not been terminated, she fits the statutory definition and is charged with the child's supervision. See id. § 232.96A(3)(b). Further, the statute also includes "other custodian[s]" or "member[s] of the household, which the mother also fits. See id. Regardless of her statutorily defined role, the mother was responsible for supervising E.K. on August 18, and she failed to provide that supervision. Further, the legality of her behavior does not speak to safety or to the child's best interests.
At the time of the events described herein, E.K. resided with both her mother and maternal grandmother in the grandmother's home. Though the maternal grandmother acted as E.K.'s primary caregiver, the mother had taken E.K. from the home while the grandmother was absent.
Next, the mother argues that the court's consideration of the Department's claim she did not cooperate with services was error. She argues that because she had pending charges, her refusal to sign releases was justified. But the court was free to consider this refusal in determining whether adjudication is warranted. See In re L.B., No. 20-1164, 2020 WL 6482087, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2020) (finding grounds for adjudication established based on refusal to comply with services). While the mother also claims that the Department's "last attempt to contact [her] was on November 15, 2023," she fails to provide any other detail. We therefore consider this issue waived without any other authority or explanation of how the court erred by considering this. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3).
Finally, the mother argues that there is no evidence that she did not provide proper medical care and that a previous informal Department case relative to E.K has been closed. When considering the child's best interests, "we look to the parent['s] past performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future." L.H., 904 N.W.2d at 149 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The court considered evidence that the child was prescribed medications that were not in the possession of the mother at the time of her arrest. Given the long length of time E.K. spent with the mother and no indication that the mother would return her to the maternal grandmother soon, the lack of medication was a concern for the Department. Similarly, a previously founded investigation by the Department concerned the mother's ability to maintain E.K.'s necessary medical care, including attendance at health appointments. While the cases were ultimately closed, the founded investigations speak to the quality of care the mother is able to provide today. See id.
The mother also argues that the court's aid is not required because reunification is not necessary. See Iowa Code § 232.96(8) ("[I]f the court concludes that its aid is not required in the circumstances, the court shall dismiss the petition."). She claims that because E.K. has resided with the maternal grandmother since birth, reunification is not the correct goal in this case. But without any formal guardianship, termination-of-parental-rights, or similar proceedings in place, this child is at the mercy of the mother's whims. The child protective worker testified that the mother picked up E.K. without the maternal grandmother's knowledge. When the grandmother returned home, she learned E.K. was not there and called the mother to find out where E.K. was. But the grandmother "didn't learn that [the mother] was in Ames until [she] called her from jail." While the mother argues that she is not providing care to E.K. because the maternal grandmother is, this is clearly untrue. The mother has unfettered access to E.K. and demonstrated that she can remove the child from the grandmother's care without the grandmother's knowledge or permission. We therefore find the court's intervention here to be both necessary to protect E.K. and to provide enforcement of services.
B. Risk of Receiving Inadequate Care.
A CINA adjudication is proper when the child is at risk of receiving inadequate care due to the parent's mental illness or substance abuse. Iowa Code § 232.96A(14). The juvenile court determined that the mother's "persistent mental condition" impacted her parenting abilities, resulting in the mother being "unwilling to provide appropriate supervision" and failing to appreciate risks to E.K.'s wellbeing. We agree. In previous Department interactions, the mother struggled to comply with mental-health services. This was corroborated by the child protective worker's testimony, who described the mother's admissions to having a mentalhealth condition and her unwillingness to take her prescribed medications. Similarly, the social worker case manager also testified that any attempts to connect the mother with services or to receive documentation of her diagnosis were met with refusals. During the proceedings, the mother was even hospitalized for an involuntary mental-health committal, which prevented her from providing care to E.K.
Further, the mother also has serious substance-abuse issues, which she expressed to the child protective worker. The maternal grandmother similarly communicated her concerns about the mother's drug use. In the Department's previous involvements, the mother admitted to consistent marijuana use and refused to stop smoking because she "doesn't feel right" without it. While this alone does not support adjudication, there is a "nexus" between the substance use and the risk to E.K. In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 682 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). When pleading guilty to the possession charge, the mother admitted to using marijuana "in public and during the late evening hours with my daughter present" on August 18. Police determined her strange behavior was likely substance-related and subsequently charged her with related offenses. Upon our own review, clear and convincing evidence establishes the grounds for risk to E.K.'s well-being based on the mother's mental-health and substance-abuse concerns.
But the mother refutes the evidence considered by the juvenile court, and we discuss each in turn. First, the mother argues that the child endangerment charge was dismissed but fails to explain why this is relevant to the adjudication. Criminal proceedings are fundamentally different from those related to CINA. See In re B.M., No. 21-0820, 2021 WL 3661402, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2021) (differentiating types of proceedings because criminal cases have a "more stringent burden of proof" and adjudication "provides a much more child-focused protection for the child"). She similarly reasserts her previous argument that the maternal grandmother was E.K.'s primary caregiver. But neither argument is accompanied by any authorities or additional justification refuting the juvenile court's determination, and we find this waived. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3); see also In re C.S., No. 15-0612, 2015 WL 3635749, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 10, 2015) (finding the mother's "one-sentence argument" lacking citation inadequate to appeal).
The mother further rebuts the child protective worker's testimony and actions related to the investigation. But this is a credibility determination, and we give substantial weight to the juvenile court's fact findings when assessing witnesses. In re S.M.D., No. 12-1889, 2013 WL 100222, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2013). The juvenile court found this testimony reliable, especially when combined with consistent exhibits. The worker's testimony verified the claims maintained in exhibits and other testimony, and the mother offered no valid reason why the court's consideration of her testimony was incorrect.
Next, the mother justifies her substance use, claiming that "Iowa has started to loosen the restriction on [marijuana's] use for medical reasons." But she provides no authority that establishes this claim. Marijuana use is still illegal in Iowa. See Iowa Code § 124.401(1) (making it "unlawful" to possess controlled substances); see also id. § 124.204(4)(m) (including "marijuana" as a controlled substance); State v. Hurtt, No. 22-0091, 2023 WL 152767, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2023) (affirming possession-of-a-controlled-substance charge because Iowa "neither legalized medical marijuana [prescriptions] nor recognizes possession of marijuana"). We therefore see no issue with the juvenile court's consideration of her use and possession of marijuana in its adjudication determination.
Finally, the mother argues that the guardian ad litem recommended finding that the State had not met its burden on this section. While that may weigh in favor of finding the grounds have not been met, we still find the mother waived this contention because she provided no additional argument beyond one sentence. See In re D.J., No. 09-1227, 2009 WL 3380626, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2009) (factoring the guardian ad litem's unfavorable recommendation into its adjudication determination); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3).
We similarly find that the court's aid is essential in enforcing the mother's treatment. See Iowa Code § 232.96(8) ("[I]f the court concludes that its aid is not required in the circumstances, the court shall dismiss the petition."). While the mother claims her probation conditions are consistent with the Department's directives and provide sufficient enforcement, we disagree. "The safety of this child should not be subjected to the uncertainty of the twists and turns that may occur in the [mother's] criminal case." B.M., 2021 WL 3661402, at *2 (concluding conditions imposed as part of criminal proceedings are insufficient enforcement). Because adjudication will prioritize the child and the mother's mental health and unresolved substance-use issues, we find the court's enforcement necessary to keep this goal in focus.
IV. Disposition.
Because the State met its burden in establishing grounds for adjudication under section 232.96A(3)(b) and (14) and the court's aid is necessary for the child's best interests, we affirm adjudication of E.K. as a CINA.
AFFIRMED.