Opinion
No. 5-283 / 05-0259
Filed April 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Lucy J. Gamon, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals a juvenile court order adjudicating his children in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Sara Smith of Nidey, Peterson, Erdahl Tindal, Williamsburg, for father-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Barbara Edmondson, County Attorney, for appellee.
Kathryn Salazar of Day, Meeker, Lamping, Schlegel Salazar, Washington, guardian ad litem for the children.
Katherine McConnell of Lloyd, McConnell Davis L.L.P., Washington, for the mother.
Roxann Romig, Albion, pro se.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Preston appeals a juvenile court order adjudicating his children in need of assistance. He contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the court's adjudication under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (defining "child in need of assistance" as one "[w]ho has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of . . . (2) [t]he failure of the child's parent . . . to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child.").
The juvenile court found:
[T]he children were exposed to methamphetamine while in the home of the father. All three children tested positive for methamphetamine exposure. The father tested positive for methamphetamine usage. It is not clear, however, that the father is the source of the children's methamphetamine exposure. It is clear that the father knowingly allowed the children to associate with relatives who were methamphetamine users.
The record, reviewed de novo, supports these findings. In re C.L.B., 528 N.W.2d 669, 670 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). A Department of Human Services social worker testified that a hair test performed on Preston "was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine at a level that . . . is the highest level that it will show." She opined that the children's exposure came from Preston, but this opinion was disputed. Specifically, a family therapist who visited the home found no evidence that Preston used drugs in the children's presence.
Notwithstanding this lack of clarity as to whether Preston exposed the children to methamphetamine, the fact remains that someone used the drug in the presence of the children and, when this happened, Preston was one of the people charged with supervising them. For this reason, we agree with the juvenile court order adjudicating the children in need of assistance.