Opinion
No. 5-458 / 05-0663
Filed June 15, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals a dispositional order placing her children with the paternal grandparents. AFFIRMED.
Mary Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Jason Helm, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
John Silko, Bloomfield, for father.
Cynthia Hucks of Box Box, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Jeffrey and Michelle are the parents of twins, Dominick and David, born in October 2000. The parents are divorced, and Jeffrey had physical care of the children under the terms of their dissolution decree. Both parents have a history of substance abuse. In October 2004 hair tests showed the twins had been exposed to methamphetamine and marijuana. Jeffrey voluntarily placed the children with the paternal grandparents.
The juvenile court adjudicated the twins to be children in need of assistance (CINA), under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise) and (o) (illegal drug present in child). Michelle was ordered to participate in individual therapy and family-centered services, and to provide random drug tests.
At the dispositional hearing, Michelle requested to have the children placed in her care until they could be returned to Jeffrey. The juvenile court noted:
Ms. Chamberlain [of the Department of Human Services] testified that Jeff is doing everything that has been asked of him, and that he is nearing a point when the children may be able to be returned to him. Ms. Chamberlain indicated that Michelle missed all of her parent-skill appointments in February, and has not been consistent in notifying the paternal grandparents of her work schedule so that she can arrange for her mid-week visits. Ms. Chamberlain is also concerned that Michelle has apparently allowed her boyfriend, David , to supervise the children alone contrary to the department's recommendations.
The guardian ad litem recommended that the children stay in their current placement. The court concluded the children should remain in the care of the paternal grandparents. The juvenile court denied Michelle's post-trial motion, filed pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). Michelle now appeals.
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. Timeliness of Appeals
We first address the State's contention that the appeal in this case is untimely because Michelle did not file a valid post-trial motion. The State asserts that a post-trial motion that essentially requests the juvenile court to reconsider issues does not toll the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. See Explore Info. Servs. v. Iowa Court Info. Sys., 636 N.W.2d 50, 54 (Iowa 2001). We determine the post-trial motion was permissible under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). The time to file an appeal was tolled until the court ruled on the motion. Gardner v. Hartford Ins. Accident Indem. Co., 659 N.W.2d 198, 202 (Iowa 2003) ("A notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days of the ruling on what was in essence a rule 1.904(2) motion.").
IV. Placement of Children
Michelle asserts the children should be placed in her care until Jeffrey is able to resume caring for them. Under section 232.102(1)(a), after a dispositional hearing a juvenile court may order children placed with, "[a] parent who does not have physical care of the child, other relative, or other suitable person." Thus, for purposes of section 232.102(1)(a), Michelle and the paternal grandparents were placement options available to the court.
On our de novo review of the record, we conclude it is in the children's best interests to remain in their current placement with the paternal grandparents. Everyone agreed the children were doing well in the care of the grandparents. The evidence showed Jeffrey was participating in services and hopefully the children could be returned to his care in a short period of time. There were also concerns that Michelle had not been fully participating in services. Based on these factors, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.