Opinion
No. 4-160 / 03-1441
Filed March 24, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jeffrey Harris, District Associate Judge.
W.W. appeals the entry of a permanency order. AFFIRMED.
Mary Kennedy, Waterloo, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Ferguson, County Attorney, and Melissa Smith, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Whitley appeals a permanency order entered on August 8, 2003. The juvenile court held the custody and control of Whitley was to remain with Juvenile Court Services (JCS) for placement in a suitable long-term planned living arrangement. Whitley contends the juvenile court erred by placing her in a residential facility, instead of a less restrictive alternative placement. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings.
Whitley was born on March 11, 1988. On October 9, 2001, she was charged with theft in the fifth degree and interference with official acts. Whitley was subsequently placed on informal probation where she was required to complete community service and to attend life skills and first offender programs. On January 9, 2002, she was placed in the Black Hawk County Youth Shelter.
On January 10, 2002, a delinquency petition was filed against Whitley because of several probation violations. She entered into a consent decree, and an adjudication of delinquency was withheld. However, on February 28, 2002, Whitley was again placed in a shelter after an application for immediate custody was entered. The juvenile court revoked the consent decree due to Whitley's serious behavioral problems. She was then adjudicated as a delinquent on March 4, 2002.
A dispositional hearing was set for April 10, 2002. At that time, the juvenile court held the least restrictive disposition would be to place Whitley in the custody of JCS for placement in foster group care in a day-evening treatment program. She was allowed to reside with her mother on formal probation. Reasonable efforts were made to prevent the need for Whitley's removal from the home through the issuance of informal probation and consent decree supervision. The court reasoned a mere discharge on formal probation would not have been sufficient "given the level and chronicity of the child's behavioral problems."
Whitley has an extensive placement history while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Since January 9, 2002, she has been in and out of the Black Hawk County Youth Shelter three times. On September 9, 2002, she was placed at the John McDonald Residential Treatment (JMRT) program in Monticello, Iowa. Pursuant to the juvenile court's order on August 8, 2003, Whitley remained in the JMRT program.
II. Standard of Review.
Juvenile matters are reviewed de novo. In re N.W.E., 564 N.W.2d 451, 453 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). We review both questions of law and fact anew. In re D.L.C., 464 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Iowa 1991). We give weight to the fact findings of the juvenile court, especially in considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g); In re N.W.E., 564 N.W.2d at 453.
III. Least Restrictive Disposition.
The issue in this case is whether Whitley's continued placement in the JMRT program is the least restrictive disposition under these circumstances. We agree that it is.
Dispositional orders are governed by Iowa Code section 232.52, which requires in part:
[T]he court shall enter the least restrictive dispositional order appropriate in view of the seriousness of the delinquent act, the child's culpability as indicated by the circumstances of the particular case, the age of the child and the child's prior record. . . .
Whitley was adjudicated to have committed the delinquent acts of theft in the fifth degree and interference with official acts. Both offenses would have been simple misdemeanors, if she had been an adult. Iowa Code §§ 714.2, 719.1 (2003). Since January 9, 2002, Whitley has been in placement including the Black Hawk County Youth Center, the Phase I Program, and the JMRT program.
While in treatment, Whitley has manifested serious behavior problems. She has engaged in manipulative behavior at home, with the day treatment staff at the JMRT program, and with JCS. She has demonstrated threatening behaviors, a disregard for the rules, and a tendency to lie.
Although Whitley has made some advances in her treatment, she continues to experience significant behavior problems within her placement. She has been in the JMRT program since September 9, 2002, and her treatment goals have not yet been accomplished. Her progress has been sporadic, and she has regressed in areas of threatening and manipulative behavior.
At the permanency hearing, Whitley expressed a desire to be transferred to Courtland House so that she could be closer to her father. Whitley stated if she was closer to her father, she could work on their relationship and ultimately she could live with him. In fact, her father has participated in family therapy on a regular basis. Yet, JCS believes placement in his home would be difficult because Whitley has not demonstrated the type of progress that would suggest she is ready for such a step. Moreover, the JMRT program will not recommend Whitley to Courtland House because of her failure to meet specified goals. Courtland House will not accept her without recommendation in terms of her behavior being consistent and appropriate for a less structured setting.
The juvenile court noted that if Whitley got her act together, and if it was recommended by JCS, she could eventually be placed at Courtland House. It is the understanding of this court that placement at Courtland House is a part of Whitley's long-term goals. However, it is in her best interests at this time to have her care and custody remain with JCS for placement commensurate with her needs.
We conclude, under the circumstances of this case, the placement order is the least restrictive alternative. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the permanency order entered by the juvenile court.