Opinion
No. 5-887 / 05-1678
Filed November 23, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Timothy T. Jarman, District Associate Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of a dispositional order removing R.H. from her custody. AFFIRMED.
John C. Nelson, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Paul Jensen, County Attorney, and Stephen Allen, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Lesley Rynell, Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for minor child.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Patricia appeals an order transferring temporary custody of her ten-year-old son, Robin, to the Department of Human Services for placement in foster care. Iowa Code § 232.102(1)(c) (2005). She contends the record lacks support for this disposition and the disposition is not in her son's best interests. On our de novo review, we disagree.
Thirty-six-year-old Patricia has a long history of substance abuse. She began using alcohol and marijuana at the age of fourteen and cocaine at the age of eighteen. When she was thirty-one, her drug of choice became methamphetamine.
In the spring of 2005, law enforcement officers conducted a search of Patricia's home. They found marijuana and methamphetamine paraphernalia as well as an unknown amount of an illegal substance, later identified as methamphetamine. Patricia admitted she was addicted to methamphetamine.
Robin was adjudicated a child in need of assistance but remained with his mother. A child abuse report issued by the Department stated:
Patricia has an extensive history with the Department and has received every service that is available to the Department, including foster care. Patricia continues to use drugs and admits to her "addiction" of them. Unless Patricia remains sober/drug-free for a period of time, no service is going to be effective for the family.
In mid-2005, Robin reported that a fourteen-year-old boy had sexually molested him several months earlier. That boy was hired by Patricia to baby-sit Robin and, on at least one occasion, was paid with cigarettes.
Meanwhile, Patricia made an effort to curtail her drug use. By her own admission, previous efforts had proved unsuccessful, with one period of sobriety lasting only ten days and another lasting for a year and a half. Despite these failed attempts, Patricia did not follow a recommendation to attend "clinically managed high-intensity residential" treatment because, in her view, she "had been through inpatient treatment before" and it "did not help." She elected instead to attend out-patient treatment and Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, but did so while working at a bar.
Patricia acknowledged her employment was inappropriate, given her history of alcohol abuse. This employment had the further consequence of separating her from her ten-year-old son during most evenings and nights, and of leaving him unsupervised during the summer days. Although Patricia made arrangements to have a neighbor care for Robin during her work hours, the care ended at approximately 7:00 or 7:30 in the morning. After that time, Robin was free to roam about town while his mother slept. He generally walked alone to and from the local swimming pool and spent the day there. His abuser lived within one block of the pool.
Based on this record, we agree with the district court that the State satisfied its burden of establishing grounds for a temporary change in custody.
In reaching this conclusion, we have considered Patricia's attestations of sobriety during the two months preceding the dispositional hearing. This testimony does not alter our conclusion, given her poor choices with respect to employment and supervision.
We have also considered the testimony of an in-home therapist who opined that Patricia "would do whatever she had to do to protect that child." The record evidence belies this assertion. Notably, the same therapist also opined that, if Robin were placed in foster care, Patricia would have a chance to "[f]ocus on her recovery" as well as her employment and financial situation. Court-appointed special advocates also favored this disposition.
Finally, we are cognizant of Robin's preference to stay with his mother. We agree with the district court that the present record renders that option unfeasible.
We affirm the district court's conclusion that "the least restrictive disposition available under the circumstances, which is in the best interests of the child, is that the care, custody, and control of [Robin] shall now be with the Iowa Department of Human Services for placement into family foster care, relative care, or with another suitable party."