Opinion
No. 5-087 / 04-2034
Filed February 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Jane C. Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
M.R.K. appeals from the order adjudicating her children to be children in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Daniel Swift of Swift Swift, Manchester, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, John Bernau, County Attorney, and Richard Feeney, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Kimberly Lange, Edgewood, for father of S.K.
John Carr of Carr Carr, Manchester, for father of A.S.
William Werger, Manchester, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Michele is the mother of Britani, born in January 1998; Samantha, born in December 1999; and Austin, born in January 2002. Richard is the father of Samantha. Richard is a registered sex offender due to an incident with a child. In 2001 the Department of Human Services entered a founded report that Richard had sexually abused Britani. Michele agreed that Richard would have no contact with the children, and no juvenile court action was taken.
In 1994 Richard entered an Alford plea to a charge of lascivious acts with a child. He was placed on probation.
In August 2004 the department received a report that Michele and the children had moved in with Richard. Michele told social workers she did not think Richard was a threat to sexually abuse her children. The children were removed from Michele's care for a short period of time. Michele moved out of Richard's home, and Britani and Samantha were returned to her care. Austin was placed with his father, James.
The juvenile court adjudicated the children to be children in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) (2003) (parent is imminently likely to neglect child), (c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise), (d) (child is imminently likely to be sexually abused), and (n) (parent's mental condition results in child not receiving adequate care). Michele was ordered to cooperate with family-centered services, mental health services, and counseling for the children, and to abide by an order prohibiting contact between Richard and the children. After the entry of a dispositional order, Michele appealed.
II. Standard of Review
Our scope of review in juvenile court proceedings is de novo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). Although we give weight to the juvenile court's factual findings, we are not bound by them. Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re E.H., 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Michele contends the State failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children should be adjudicated to be CINA. She points out that in 2001, when the Department issued a founded report of sexual abuse regarding improper contact between Richard and Britani, there was no juvenile court action. Michele claims no juvenile court action is needed now. She asserts that she is able to supervise all contact between Richard and the children.
We determine the children were properly adjudicated to be CINA. In 2001 Michele agreed that Richard would not have contact with the children, and at that time she supported Britani. Michele now believes that Britani's allegations were false and that Richard did not have sexual contact with her. Michele told social workers she did not believe Richard posed a threat of sexually abusing her children. In these circumstances, Michele would be unable to protect the children. We conclude juvenile court action is necessary and appropriate.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.