Opinion
No. 3-916 / 03-1804.
Filed December 10, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen, District Associate Judge.
P.R. appeals from the permanency order placing her child in long-term foster care. AFFIRMED.
Stephen Newport of Newport Newport, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant-mother.
Christine Frederick of Zamora, Taylor, Alexander, Woods Frederick, Davenport, for minor child, J.M.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
John Molyneaux, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Penny is Justin's mother. Justin was born on August 30, 1989. In May 2001 Penny requested assistance from the Department of Human Services because Justin threatened other family members with a knife. Justin was removed from Penny's custody and briefly placed in a psychiatric hospital. The resulting psychological evaluation and home studies indicated Justin had been physically and sexually abused. Justin was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and reactive attachment disorder of childhood. As a result, Justin was adjudicated a child in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(f) (parent unwilling or unable to provide child's needed treatment for serious mental illness). Justin was placed in a "treatment level" foster home, and ultimately in a residential treatment facility.
Psychological evaluations also disclosed Penny's history of abusive relationships. She denied or minimized Justin's abuse and refused to acknowledge any causal relationship between Justin's abuse and mental health issues. Despite the department's efforts to assist Penny, she continued her relationship with men responsible for abusing both her and Justin.
Penny was diagnosed with an adjustment and personality disorder. Although she participated in individual therapy to address these issues, Penny declined to disclose needed information about the results. Penny's history of confrontation with social workers assigned to Justin's case was reportedly an impediment to successful visitation. As a result, the department changed its permanency goals for Justin from alternative living to long-term foster care.
On October 3, 2003, the juvenile court conducted a permanency hearing in anticipation of Justin's release from residential treatment in November 2003. The department reiterated its permanency goal for Justin's placement in long-term foster care. The juvenile court rejected Penny's demands for Justin's return to her custody, stating:
The mother seems to be plagued by the same thinking errors, behaviors and attitudes that she has exhibited since at least 1991. The Court is dubious about the mother's commitment to services. Her attitude appears to be to expect that the Court will fix or mend Justin so he can come home while she sees minimal responsibility to change herself.
The court also determined that termination of Penny's parental rights was not in Justin's best interests and placed Justin in long-term foster care. The court's permanency order also made provisions for Penny's continued visitation with Justin.
Penny has appealed, claiming it is in Justin's best interests to be placed in her home. Justin has joined in Penny's appeal.
II. Standard of Review
Our scope of review in juvenile court proceedings is de novo. See In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Our paramount concern is the best interest of the child. In re D.S., 437 N.W.2d 587, 588 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989).
III. Merits
Penny contends it is in Justin's best interests to be returned to her custodial care. She claims her past experience provides no justification for continuing Justin's foster care now that Justin's mental health issues have been addressed and he will be discharged from residential treatment. We disagree.
Our primary concern is the best interest of the child. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000). In considering a child's best interests, we look to the child's long-range, as well as immediate interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). We consider what the future holds for the child if returned to the parents. In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Insight for this determination can be gained from evidence of the parent's past performance, for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care the parent is capable of providing. C.K., 558 N.W.2d at 172.
Based on Penny's past performance, we find she currently is unable to meet Justin's needs. Justin's therapist stated Justin needs a consistent environment and expectations to accomplish a successful placement outside of the residential treatment facility. As the juvenile court noted, "[Penny] does not truly accept or understand the connection between her choices and her behavior and the environment that she has for her children and the effect on Justin." Penny is unable to protect Justin or provide him with the safe and stable environment he needs. The risk of losing all that has been gained by Justin's diagnosis and treatment is simply too great to permit his return to Penny's custodial care.
Lastly, we reject Penny's claim that the court's return of Justin's brother, Jacob, to her care following resolution of a separate CINA proceeding is conclusive proof that she can now assume custody of Justin. When asked, a case worker explained the difference between the two children's circumstances. She testified:
Dr. McEchron's transcripts with the Court indicate that Justin has some emotional needs, mental health needs that are far more significant than Jacob's. Does he have concern about Jacob? Yes, he did, but Justin's needs are more serious and require a more structured environment and more consistency if he is going to be successful. That is where the difference is. . . .
We agree.
After carefully considering the record, we reach the same conclusion as the juvenile court. Justin's best interests require long-term foster placement, and we therefore affirm the juvenile court's permanency order.