Opinion
23-1196
10-25-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF I.D., Minor Child, S.D., Mother, Appellant.
David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Melody Butz, Center Point, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the change of the permanency goal during a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED.
David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Melody Butz, Center Point, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J.
VOGEL, SENIOR JUDGE.
The mother appeals the modification of the permanency goal in this child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceeding. The child, born in April 2006, was removed from parental custody in June 2022 after the child reported she was the victim of repeated sexual and physical abuse in the family home. The child was placed with her maternal uncle and aunt under a limited guardianship. In September, the juvenile court issued the CINA adjudicatory order with a permanency goal of returning the child to the home. The mother and father both face pending criminal charges stemming from the sexual abuse, and both parents are still subject to criminal no contact orders protecting the child. In April 2023, the mother testified at a hearing on her reasonable-efforts motion seeking to move the child's placement from the uncle and aunt to other family or foster care closer to the mother; the juvenile court found the mother lacked credibility and denied her motion. The most recent permanency hearing was in July 2023, after which the court issued the order modifying the permanency goal from reunification with the parents to a guardianship with the uncle and aunt. Only the mother appeals.
"We review CINA proceedings de novo. In reviewing the proceedings, we are not bound by the juvenile court's fact findings; however, we do give them weight. CINA determinations must be based upon clear and convincing evidence." In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40-41 (Iowa 2014) (internal citations omitted).
The mother argues placing the child in a guardianship with the uncle and aunt is not in her best interests. Instead, she asserts the juvenile court should have granted her an additional six months for reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2) (2023) (providing the juvenile court with several options after a CINA permanency hearing, including "continu[ing] placement of the child for an additional six months" under paragraph (b), and "[t]ransfer[ring] guardianship and custody of the child to an adult relative" under paragraph (d)(2)).
The problem with the mother's request for an additional six months is the juvenile court may only grant such a request if the need for removal will no longer exist after those six months. See id. § 232.104(2)(d)(2). As of the July 2023 permanency hearing, the mother had outstanding criminal charges related to the child's abuse, and a criminal no contact order has prevented the mother from interacting with the child for almost this entire proceeding. There is no certainty either the criminal charges or the no contact order will be resolved before the six months elapse. Thus, a six-month extension is not appropriate.
Even if the criminal charges and no contact order were not an obstacle to reunification, a guardianship is still in the child's best interests. The child's therapist and guardian ad litem report the child is doing well with her uncle and aunt. After years of suffering abuse, the child wants the guardianship and to cut contact with the mother. We give weight to this intelligent seventeen-year-old child's wishes. Her age also leaves little time for reunification before she reaches eighteen in April 2024. The limited nature of the current guardianship is untenable, as the mother attacked the uncle and aunt with allegations the juvenile court found not "at all credible." The mother also refused to give permission for the child to engage in certain activities-as required under the limited guardianship-such as travel with the uncle and aunt, necessitating court approval.
The mother complains she has never had an opportunity for reunification, but she failed to take the actions available to her to reunify with the child. The child's removal and the no contact order resulted from concerns the mother at least knew of and did nothing to stop sexual and physical abuse against the child. The no contact order has been in place for over one year, and the mother did not seek to have the order lifted until days before the July 2023 hearing. The mother has not acknowledged any wrongdoing by herself or the father. See In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Iowa 2002) ("A parent's failure to address his or her role in the abuse may hurt the parents' chances of regaining custody and care of their children."). The mother's most recent testimony at the April 2023 hearing shows the mother defensive and lacking introspection, as she attacked case workers, the uncle and aunt, and the child herself.
Considering the mother's ongoing criminal proceeding, the child's maturity and growth in her current placement, and the mother's lack of progress since removal, we agree modifying the permanency goal to guardianship is in the child's best interests.
AFFIRMED.
Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2023).