Opinion
No. 3-561 / 03-0066
Filed August 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Gerald Magee, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from rulings made by the juvenile court in a child in need of assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED.
Ronald D. Arispe, Clear Lake, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, and Paul Martin, County Attorney, appellee-State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
Jodi L. appeals from rulings by the juvenile court in a child in need of assistance proceeding involving her daughter, Jenni, born January 18, 1987. Jodi claims (1) the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her daughter, (2) returning Jenni to her care is not contrary to Jenni's best interests, and (3) the juvenile court erred in denying a request for a hearing on a pro se motion. We affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Jenni, now age sixteen, is a difficult and troubled child. Among other things, she has engaged in violent behavior, stolen a car, and posted improper photos of herself on the Internet. She has a history with the Department of Human Services (Department) which dates back to February 1999. Her mother has voluntarily placed her with the Department on multiple occasions. Jenni has been placed in youth shelters eighteen times, detention facilities three times, residential programs four times, and the Iowa Juvenile Home on two occasions. She has also been placed with relatives.
In January 2002, Jodi approached the Department and requested an out-of-home placement for her daughter. On January 29, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to have Jenni adjudicated as a child in need of assistance. The following day, the juvenile court removed Jenni from her mother's care and placed her in shelter care. On February 15, 2002, the court adjudicated Jenni in need of assistance. The court found Jenni was in need of treatment for serious mental illness or emotional damage. The court further found an ongoing conflict existed between Jenni and her mother and prior attempts at reunification had not been successful. All parties agreed to continue Jenni's placement in shelter care.
Following a dispositional hearing on March 11, 2002, the court placed Jenni in family foster care, ordered her to receive therapy, and limited Jodi to two supervised visits per month. Shortly thereafter, the Department removed Jenni from foster care at the foster parents' request because Jenni refused to obey the foster parents' household rules and was oppositional. Jenni was placed in shelter care. She ran away from that placement and became a suspect in a car theft.
Following a modification hearing in May 2002, the juvenile court placed Jenni in the Iowa Juvenile Home. The court recognized Jodi's continuing inability to parent Jenni and ordered both mother and daughter to complete full psychological evaluations. The court ordered twice-per-month supervised visits for Jodi.
A review hearing was held on November 13, 2002. The court found Jenni had made progress and was close to completing the entire program at the Iowa Juvenile Home. The court continued placement at the Juvenile Home until a vacancy arose for Jenni in a therapeutic foster home.
The record reveals Jodi was not pleased by the court's failure to return Jenni home following the November hearing. From December 12, 2002, to January 6, 2003, Jodi filed a series of pro se requests. Among other things, she sought removal of Jenni's social worker, the lawyer serving as Jennie's attorney and guardian ad litem, and recusal of the presiding judge. She also expressed her continuing opposition to the services being offered to her daughter and again requested a return of custody. On December 19, 2002, the juvenile court entered an order denying her request for a hearing regarding removal of the child's attorney and social worker. In the same order, the court scheduled a hearing to review the Department's progress in finding an appropriate foster care placement for Jenni.
On January 6, 2003, the juvenile court held a review hearing. By order entered the same day, the court confirmed its prior order requiring Jenni to remain at the Iowa Juvenile Home pending placement in an appropriate therapeutic foster home. The court ordered the Department to continue its efforts to place Jenni in an appropriate foster care setting. The court denied Jodi's renewed request for return of the child to her home. Following the hearing, Jodi filed notices of appeal challenging orders entered by the juvenile court on December 19, 2002, and January 6, 2003.
II. Scope of Review.
Our review of child in need of assistance proceedings is de novo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). We review both the facts and the law, and we adjudicate rights anew. Id. Our paramount concern is the best interests of the child. In re E.H. III, 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998).
III. Discussion.
Jodi first contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her daughter. Reasonable services must be offered to preserve the family unit and to eliminate the need for removal. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The record reveals the Department has provided numerous services in its effort to reunify mother and daughter. The services have included family-centered services, individual therapy, shelter placements, placement with relatives, family foster care, training school, psychological evaluations, and monitored visitation. Jodi now argues the court's decision to limit her visitation strained her relationship with her daughter rather than serving to reunite them. We remind the mother that it is Jenni's best interests that are in consideration, not the mother's. The record shows Jenni began making progress with her behavior after the court ordered limited contact between Jenni and her mother. On our de novo review, we conclude reasonable services have been provided to the family.
Jodi next contends the juvenile court erred by failing to return Jenni to her care following the review hearings held in November 2002 and January 2003. We disagree. Jenni and her mother do not get along. They have a lengthy history of verbal and sometimes physical confrontations. Since 1999 Jenni has been unsuccessfully returned to her mother's care on at least eight separate occasions. On several occasions when she returned home, the placement lasted just a few days. The record indicates Jenni has actually lived with her mother for only about three months since 1999. When Jenni is in a placement outside the home, she expects her mother to rescue her; however, when she is returned to her mother's care, she and Jodi are in constant conflict. As we have already mentioned, the evidence shows Jenni began making improvement after her contact with her mother was limited. Under the circumstances, the juvenile court did not err by denying Jodi's request for Jenni's return to her home.
During December of 2002, Jodi wrote pro se letters to the juvenile court demanding removal of Jenni's social worker and her guardian ad litem. The court denied her request for hearing. On appeal, Jodi claims the juvenile court erred by denying her a hearing to raise concerns regarding the child's attorney, the social worker, and the juvenile court itself. We find it unnecessary to address the merits of Jodi's final assignment of error. Jodi's brief fails to state how error was preserved on this issue. Her argument on appeal merely suggests that a conflict of interest can occur when legal counsel is performing the role of advocate for the child and serving as her guardian ad litem. See generally Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(1)( c). Jodi cites no facts or legal authority in support of this argument. Similarly, she makes no argument regarding removal of the social worker and mentions no authority authorizing removal. Finally, she does not identify any recusal ruling by the juvenile court. We conclude this issue has been waived.
Jodi did not support her letters' conclusory allegations by affidavit, see Iowa R. Civ. P 1.431(6), and made no offer of proof when the court denied her request for hearing.