Opinion
No. 5-696 / 05-1431
Filed October 12, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen Kilnoski, Associate Juvenile Judge.
The grandmother of N.L. appeals from the juvenile court's entry of a permanency review order. AFFIRMED.
Scott D. Strait of the Shanks Law Firm, Council Bluffs, for appellant-grandmother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Dawn Eimers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Marti Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, J.J.
This case concerns Nickolus, who was born in March 1988. Nickolus has a long-standing history of schizoaffective disorder. He had been living with his maternal grandmother, Ann, for many years, until a December 2003 juvenile court order permitted a psychiatrist, Dr. Craig Seamonds, to take Nickolus into protective custody because he opined that Ann was not providing a safe environment nor following recommendations for his care. In In re N.L., No. 04-0358 (Iowa Ct.App. April 28, 2004), we affirmed his removal from Ann's care, concluding that to leave Nickolus in Ann's home would be contrary to his best interests. Nickolus was eventually placed at the Family Resources Wittenmeyer facility in Davenport.
On August 15, 2005, Nickolus's case came on for a contested CINA permanency hearing. Ann appeared and argued that Nickolus should be returned to her care. She further requested that Nickolus be reevaluated by another psychiatrist and that she have unsupervised contact with Nickolus. The juvenile court denied Ann's requests for custody of Nickolus and for a further psychiatric evaluation. Consequently, it ordered that Nickolus remain in his current placement. Ann appeals from this order.
Our scope of review in juvenile court proceedings is de novo. See In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Our paramount concern is the best interests of the child. In re D.S., 437 N.W.2d 587, 588 (Iowa Ct.App. 1989).
Ann raises three issues on appeal. She argues the court improperly (1) refused to return Nickolus's custody to her, (2) refused her request for an alternate psychiatric examination, and (3) ordered that her "contact be at the discretion of the Department of Human Services."
An August 9, 2005, Case Plan Review stated:
Nickolus . . . has made significant progress in his behaviors and his mental stability in the last six months at Family Resources. Nickolus was [the] most improved student in his classroom and has not had any significant behavioral problem, reported to this writer, since February this year.
That review recommended that Nickolus remain in the Davenport group home, that he have contact with Ann "only as recommended by his psychiatrist, mental health professional, and [DHS]," and that he continue with his current psychiatric treatment.
Our de novo review of the record convinces us the juvenile court order serves Nickolus's best interests. The evidence clearly supports that Nickolus has made substantial progress in his current placement. In particular, Nickolus reportedly made "significant progress" in his school setting, he has focused on treatment, and he has decreased his frequency of self-inflicted harm. In addition, it was reported that he was remaining positive for longer periods of time than he has in the past and that he has displayed leadership among his peer group at the home. We, like the juvenile court, find these positive strides argue in favor of continuing the current placement.
Moreover, although Ann asserts Nickolus's psychiatric treatment was flawed and that he requires a second examination by a new psychiatrist, we find no evidence in the record that such a step is necessary. By all accounts from treatment providers and teachers, Nickolus was not in need of an additional examination or change of treatment. Finally, we find nothing to suggest that the court's order regarding his contacts with Ann is not in Nickolus's best interests. Nothing in the court's order implies that the visitation with Ann should in any manner be decreased or restricted. We therefore affirm the juvenile court's permanency review order in its entirety.