Opinion
No. 5-244 / 05-0256
Filed April 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court's finding her two children are in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey T. Mains of Mains Law Office, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Andrea Vitzhum, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Samatha Kain, Johnston, for appellee-father.
Amy Kepes of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court's finding her two children are in need of assistance. She contends the court erred in adopting the State's theory that children are in imminent risk of harm if a parent uses methamphetamine. She also contends dismissal is mandatory because the court's assistance is not needed. On de novo review, we affirm.
Heidi is the mother of Megan, born in January 1998, and Terry, born in July 2000. As part of investigating a complaint of child abuse or neglect in September 2004, the Department of Human Services (Department) investigator asked Heidi to submit a urine sample for drug testing. The first sample was rejected because it appeared Heidi attempted adulteration or substitution. A sample provided several days later tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine (meth). Heidi admitted using meth for a year. She consented to Megan and Terry's removal and placement with her boyfriend's sister. The State petitioned to have the children found to be in need of assistance under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n) (2003).
At the contested hearing in December 2004, the Department's investigator testified generally about the effects of methamphetamine and the problems the drug causes for children whose parents use it. She also testified, "the State of Iowa does not believe that parents can parent or supervise adequately if they're using meth." Heidi's case worker testified that Heidi has "been very cooperative" with services. She recommended that the children continue in placement out of the home, that Heidi continue drug treatment, and that the Department continue supervision. The juvenile court found:
There was no evidence to support the confidential informant's allegations of leaving the children without supervision and yelling and cussing at the children. There was consistent evidence that Heidi had been providing adequate care in spite of her meth addiction. The children are healthy, well-behaved, and active. Hence, there is not clear and convincing evidence that the children should be adjudicated pursuant to Iowa Code Section 232.2(6)(n) (2003).
However, there is clear and convincing evidence to support the allegations that the children are imminently likely to be abused or neglected or suffer from a lack of supervision and denial of critical care. There need not be actual harm visited upon children before the Court can assume jurisdiction.
It is well known that parenting of small children is inconsistent with a meth addiction. Users are up for days at a time, and then "crash" for days when they come down. Mental confusion, psychotic episodes, paranoia, and physiological harm to vital organs are common with ongoing use.
. . . .
Treatment has benefited Heidi and she intends to stay the course, but the likelihood that she will be able to maintain her sobriety so early on in her treatment without supervision is unlikely. To date, Megan and Terry have been lucky that they have not directly suffered abuse or neglect. Lucky is not good enough to negate the real risk of imminent harm should Heidi relapse without a solid support system.
The court concluded the children were in need of assistance under sections 232.2(6)(b) and (c)(2) and its aid was required. It also concluded:
Given Heidi's recent history and less than full disclosure, there is an imminent likelihood that she will relapse, fail to properly supervise, and/or neglect the children. Heidi needs to demonstrate a longer period of stability before the Court's aid is no longer required.
From our review of the record, we agree with the court's findings set forth above and adopt them as our own.
The provisions of Iowa Code chapter 232 are preventative as well as remedial. See In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 1990). "Their goal is to prevent probable harm to the child; they do not require delay until after the harm has happened." In re T.A.L., 505 N.W.2d 480, 482-83 (Iowa 1993). Clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that Megan and Terry are in need of assistance under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) and (c)(2). Although Heidi has responded well to services, we find the court's assistance is required to prevent probable harm to the children and to encourage Heidi's continued compliance with drug treatment services. We concur with the juvenile court's finding that, "as long as she provides clean drug screens, [the Department] should effectuate an aggressive reunification plan."