Opinion
No. 4-065 / 03-1415
Filed February 11, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joe Moorhart, District Associate Judge.
T.W. appeals an order adjudging her daughter T.H. a child in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Colleen Alexander, Cedar Falls, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven Halbach, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Linnea Nicol, Juvenile Public Defender, Waterloo, for child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Tina appeals an order adjudicating her daughter Tiana (born on March 3, 2003) a child in need of assistance (CINA). She contends the district court should not have 1) postponed the temporary removal hearing, 2) admitted termination rulings relating to some of her other children, or 3) found the evidence sufficient to support the CINA adjudication.
With respect to Tina's first contention, Iowa Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.12 provides that a temporary removal hearing shall be held within ten days of removal. Tiana was removed from her mother on March 5, 2003. A temporary removal hearing was scheduled for March 13, 2003. On that date, the juvenile court judge advised the parties that he had participated in proceedings involving Tina and some of her other children while he was an assistant county attorney. In light of his disclosure, Tina requested that the hearing be rescheduled before another judge. Her request was granted. As the temporary hearing was postponed at Tina's own behest, we decline to find a violation of the ten-day deadline. Cf. In re A.E.O., III, 437 N.W.2d 238, 239-40 (Iowa 1989) (holding time deadline for dispositional review hearing directory rather than mandatory); In re N.M.W., 461 N.W.2d 478, 481 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (holding violation of deadline for holding adjudicatory hearing nonprejudicial).
Tina's second contention, that the court should not have admitted and considered termination rulings involving some of her other children, has been rejected by our court. See In re C.M., 526 N.W.2d 562, 565 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994); In re N.M.W., 461 N.W.2d at 480-81 (affirming admission of evidence concerning past CINA proceedings as indicator of quality of future care); cf. In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867, 873 (Iowa 1994) (stating juvenile court authorized to judicially notice "the pleadings and exhibits from previous CINA proceedings involving the same child or children").
Tina finally contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the CINA adjudication. The juvenile court relied on Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (child has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as result of parent's failure to exercise reasonable degree of care in supervising child). On our de novo review, we note that Tina has a history of mental health problems, reflected in an early diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type, more recently re-diagnosed as schizoaffective disorder. She also has a history of noncompliance with treatment and family reunification services.
We recognize that this past conduct cannot serve as the sole basis for a CINA adjudication. See In re N.M.W., 461 N.W.2d at 480-81. Here, there is more. Tiana's removal was precipitated by statements and actions Tina took at the hospital immediately following Tiana's birth. Specifically, staff informed her that the infant would have to remain in the hospital for several days. Tina responded that if she could not take her own daughter home, she would take another child. She was later seen wearing hospital garments and peering into other patients' rooms.
Despite this current evidence supporting removal, there is also evidence suggesting Tina's post-removal conduct was exemplary. For example, she reinitiated mental health treatment and began taking medication. Shortly after the removal, a mental health service provider opined that Tina was not at risk to harm herself or others. As for her contact with Tiana, a visitation supervisor stated that she had done "very well during visits with her daughter" and was "very nurturing." Department staff noted that Tina was "meeting all the baby's needs" during supervised visits, had cooperated with parenting classes, and was appropriately maintaining her apartment, issues that had been of concern in prior proceedings. Indeed, the Department's social worker testified that she believed Tina had "cooperated with everything" she had "asked for."
Nevertheless, there was also evidence that Tina was unwilling to acknowledge her mental illness, insisting that her only major health problems were epilepsy and scoliosis. This led the social worker to opine that she might again decline mental health treatment. Additionally, the social worker testified that a longer period of cooperation with services would be necessary before the child could be returned home. Finally, the district court noted several inconsistencies in Tina's statements at the hearing and opined that her testimony provided "additional support for a finding that the mother suffers from a serious mental condition that could affect the day-to-day decisions involving the child."
On our de novo review, we find the evidence sufficient to support the district court's adjudication of Tiana as a child in need of assistance.