Opinion
No. 3-445 / 02-1844
Filed July 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Linda R. Reade, Judge.
H.A. appeals the juvenile court's permanency order resulting in her children's out-of-home placement. AFFIRMED.
Tiffany Koenig and Christopher Kragnes, Sr., Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Alexandra Nelissen of Nelissen Law Office, Des Moines, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Amy Kepes of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vogel, JJ.
Heidi appeals the juvenile court's permanency order resulting in her children's out-of-home placement. We affirm.
The record indicates Heidi was arrested on drug charges in September 2001. Heidi entrusted the care of her child, A.A., born October 30, 2000, to a friend pending resolution of the charges against her. Upon her release from jail, Heidi briefly cared for A.A. before entrusting A.A.'s care to A.A.'s maternal grandmother, Randi.
In December 2001 A.A. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (Supp. 2001) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child) and (n) (parent's mental capacity or condition, or drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). The juvenile court ordered A.A.'s continued placement with Randi as part of its dispositional order entered in January 2002. In May 2002 Heidi entered a women's residential correctional facility.
T.H. was born on June 13, 2002, while Heidi was residing at a women's correctional facility. T.H. was promptly removed from Heidi's care and in June 2002 was adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child) and (n) (parent's mental capacity or condition, or drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). In its order the court indicated T.H. could be placed with Heidi at the women's correctional facility if she were accepted at the House of Mercy, a residential treatment facility, and she could transition directly there from the women's correctional facility. A dispositional order entered in September 2002 temporarily placed T.H. with Heidi, provided that she reside at the women's correctional facility or the House of Mercy. Heidi however left the correctional facility prior to enrolling at the House of Mercy and surrendered custody of T.H. to the Department of Human Services. Approximately one week later, Heidi entered the House of Mercy.
The cases involving A.A. and T.H. were consolidated. On November 6, 2002, the juvenile court entered an order permanently placing A.A. with her father and T.H. in foster care. On appeal Heidi raises the following issues:
1. The juvenile court erred by failing to grant her an additional six months to assume custodial care of her children.
2. The juvenile court erred by not placing custody of T.H. with his maternal grandmother.
Review of the order entered after a permanency hearing is de novo. In re N.M., 528 N.W.2d 94, 96 (Iowa 1995). In equity cases, especially on matters of credibility, we give weight to the trial court's findings of fact but are not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( g).
Heidi first argues the juvenile court should have allowed an additional six months to demonstrate her ability to parent both children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b). In the relevant order of the juvenile court found:
The children cannot be returned to Heidi's care at this time. Heidi . . . continues to struggle with substance abuse. Heidi used methamphetamine when pregnant with [T.H.]. Throughout this case Heidi . . . has established a pattern of negative behavior. She has not complied with services geared to reuniting her with her children. She has and continues to put her own interests, wants and desires ahead of the needs of her children. Heidi's only extended period of sobriety has been while she has been incarcerated or at the House of Mercy. Heidi has not been truthful with DHS. She has continued a relationship with a known drug user and drug dealer. Heidi consistently makes decisions she knows are poor decisions. She failed the Powell program in October 2001. She was assessed by MECCA in February 2002 and referred to intensive residential treatment, which she declined. She was assessed at Mercy First Step and was to start February 26. She was arrested and taken to jail on February 27. She participated in drug treatment at the Women's Correctional Facility but she has not had time on the outside to try her sobriety skills. Heidi lacks insight on the effect her actions have on the mental health and emotions of her children. If the Court were to return the children to her at this time she would not be able to handle parenting both of them at the same time. Further, it is premature to return the children to Heidi's care until Heidi settles into the program at House of Mercy, addresses some of her issues and demonstrates she will cooperate with the House of Mercy program.
Our review of the record confirms these findings. Heidi was offered numerous services intended to address the circumstances necessitating the children's removal from her care. These services included: urine analysis, in home services, substance abuse treatment, visitation, and protective daycare. In light of the services already offered to Heidi, and the findings recited above, we agree that Heidi should not have been given another six months to assume custodial care of her children. Heidi, throughout these proceedings, has been given multiple opportunities to demonstrate she was a capable and committed parent and she chose not to do so. For example, she had T.H. with her at the correctional facility and he could have stayed with her had she remained at the correctional facility until moving to the House of Mercy. Yet, she left the correctional facility, gave T.H. to DHS, and a week later moved to the House of Mercy. A.A. needs a permanent, stable, loving home now, and T.H.'s foster home placement should not be disturbed. We affirm on this issue.
Heidi next argues the juvenile court erred by not placing T.H. with his maternal grandmother pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.102(1)(a). Even though there is a preference for relative placement ( In re N.M., 528 N.W.2d 94, 97 (Iowa 1995)), there are good reasons for continuing T.H.'s nonrelative foster care placement. T.H. has been in foster care since September 2002. Randi declined the opportunity to have T.H. in her custody when he was removed from Heidi's care. T.H. was eventually placed in foster care because there were no other relatives suitable for placement. Randi demonstrated poor judgment through her continued association with T.H.'s father, a known drug user and drug dealer. The juvenile court specifically found: "[Randi] consistently defends Heidi to DHS such that the Court concludes she is an enabler. [Randi's] focus seems to be on her daughter as opposed to what is in the best interest of her grandchildren." We defer to this credibility assessment and agree that T.H.'s nonrelative foster care placement is in his best interests.
The juvenile court's permanency order is affirmed in its entirety.