Opinion
No. 157 / 00-1622.
Filed November 15, 2001.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, JOHN G. MULLEN, District Associate Judge.
Guardian ad Litem and State appeal permanency order in child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
Cheryl J. Newport of Newport Newport, P.L.C., Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Gordon E. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, Tabitha J. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Murray W. Bell, Special Prosecutor, Davenport, for appellant-State.
Linda J. Messer and Candy Pastrnak of Pastrnak Law Firm, P.C., Davenport, for appellee-father — T.P.L.
Ralph Heninger of Heninger and Heninger, P.C., Davenport, for mother — C.L.
James Hoffman, Davenport, for mother — G.W.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) and State appeal a permanency order that followed a child in need of assistance (CINA) adjudication involving four children formerly in the custody of Paul and Gina. The family's involvement with the juvenile court stemmed from life-threatening injuries suffered by Paul and Gina's youngest child, Ashlyn, in November 1998. Paul was found by the court to have physically abused the infant by shaking her until she suffered severe cerebral hematoma. Paul has consistently denied he perpetrated the abuse. In April 2000, he was acquitted of criminal charges of child endangerment and willful injury.
A.L. (Ashlyn), born August 7, 1998, is the daughter of Paul and Gina; A.L. (Alison), born September 12, 1992, and J.L. (Jacob), born June 11, 1995, are the issue of Paul's former marriage to Chris; and A.W. (Abby), born November 2, 1994, is the daughter of Gina and Patrick.
Paul appealed the CINA adjudication. Meanwhile, the juvenile court moved toward reunification of the family in accordance with a permanency plan approved by all parties. The court's permanency order, which is the subject of this appeal, essentially returns the family to its pre-adjudication status, subject to ongoing supervision by the Department of Human Services (DHS).
The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the juvenile court's adjudication orders in an unpublished opinion filed February 28, 2001. See A.L., A.L., J.L., and A.W., Nos. 1-008, 99-2013, 2001 WL 195227 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 28, 2001).
The GAL and State resist the court's order on a variety of grounds. Although they concede that reunification — not termination — is the "permanency goal," they are steadfast in their belief that the children will be at risk in Paul's home unless and until he acknowledges and accepts responsibility for Ashlyn's injuries. As if this impasse were not great enough, they question the court's confidence in the professionals who have counseled with Paul and offered their evaluations of his suitability as a parent both in writing and in court. And they suggest that Paul, who was arrested and pled guilty to OWI during the course of these proceedings, may have alcohol or drug dependency issues that have been overlooked by the court.
I. Our review is de novo. In re K.R., 537 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Iowa 1995). Although we are obliged to give weight to the findings of the trial court, especially when it comes to the credibility of witnesses, we are not bound by those findings. Id. As in any case involving the welfare of children, their best interests govern our decision. See id.
II. It would take a ream of paper but add little to our jurisprudence to recount here the factual details giving rise to the court's permanency decision. The members of this family, individually and collectively, have been investigated, observed, analyzed, counseled, treated and written about in endless reports. All agree that Paul has not always stood up well under the scrutiny. He plainly tends to antagonize his detractors rather than win them over. And the life-threatening injury that spawned these proceedings not only counsels a cautious approach but also justifies some of the lingering skepticism harbored by the social workers.
Yet if we focus on the strengths of Paul's relationships with his children and their mothers, rather than the weaknesses in his relationship with DHS and Lutheran Social Services, we are in fundamental agreement with the court's conclusion that "Paul, and Gina can adequately and appropriately parent these children." The court's order will not release them from the burden (and protection) of ongoing State supervision. But it will return the family to some sense of normalcy.
III. The dispositive question for us is what "family reunification" means in the context of this case. In its ruling, the juvenile court expressed its belief that reunification meant "returning the family to the composition that existed before court involvement." We disagree. For the reasons that follow, we think the permanency order must be modified to reflect the increased role Chris has assumed for the care of Alison and Jacob over the past three years.
The record reveals that Paul, Gina and the four children had lived together under one roof for only six weeks before Ashlyn's injury. And even then, Paul did not have custody of Alison and Jacob full time. His shared-custody arrangement with Chris placed the children with him roughly four days per week; Chris had them the other three days, primarily on weekends. Immediately following Ashlyn's injuries, when Paul was removed as their custodian, he placed the children with his extended family rather than with Chris. The result was chaotic for the children and, Paul concedes, not in their best interest.
Eventually the court entered an order placing Alison and Jacob with Chris full time. The children have reportedly thrived in the stability of that environment. Supervised visits with Paul and Gina and the other two girls have gone well, and there seems little doubt that the six share strong bonds of affection and attachment. Yet Paul has not participated in family counseling with Alison and Jacob to the extent envisioned by their therapist, even when the therapy sessions were specifically scheduled to accommodate him.
Overall, we are convinced by our de novo review of the record that Alison and Jacob's welfare would be best served by a custody arrangement that recognizes Chris's current status as their primary caregiver, with regular and frequent visitation granted to Paul. We therefore affirm, as so modified, the permanency order originally entered and remand this case to the juvenile court for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
This opinion shall not be published.