Opinion
No. 2-529 / 01-1860.
Filed July 31, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, DAVID LARSON, District Associate Judge.
The State appeals from a juvenile court order dismissing a child in need of assistance petition. AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, M. Elise Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, Edward Bjornstad, County Attorney, and Jack Bjornstad, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
Michael Johnson of Stoller Johnson, Spirit Lake, for appellees.
Shannon Sandy of the Sandy Law Firm, Spirit Lake, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and HECHT, JJ.
This is an appeal by the State from a juvenile court order dismissing a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings .
C.P. and B.P. are the parents of W.G., born February 1, 1996, and C.P., born March 24, 1999. After receiving a report that C.P. was using methamphetamine and marijuana in the presence of her children, drugs and drug paraphernalia were openly displayed in her home, and C.P. concealed drugs on her person, an Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) caseworker and a police officer made an unannounced visit to C.P.'s home. No drugs or drug paraphernalia were found in the house or on C.P.'s person during this visit. C.P. was asked to undergo drug testing, the result of which was positive for marijuana and methamphetamine. Because C.P. denied using drugs, a second test was administered with a positive result. B.P. was also asked to undergo testing, but did not complete the requested tests. On August 16, 2001, the State filed a petition requesting the children's adjudication as children in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (6)(c)(2), and (6)(n) (2001).
At trial the State relied on C.P.'s positive test results, false denials, and B.P.'s failure to complete requested drug tests, as well as both parents' criminal histories as proof of their parental failures. The State's theory of resulting adjudicatory harm was entirely premised on the presumptive and imminent danger parental drug abuse holds for children. The State also offered evidence that W.G.'s school attendance was sporadic and that he experienced developmental delays as a result of his absenteeism.
Both parents denied the State's allegations of abuse and neglect. C.P. asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and did not testify concerning the drug test results at issue. B.P., however, testified that C.P.'s positive tests were caused by an isolated incident of drug use while the children were away from home.
The juvenile court resolved the resulting factual disputes in favor of the parents. The court found the parents' version of events was credible and the State's evidence was insufficient to prove the parents' drug use endangered the children. The court's decision provides:
The use of marijuana and/or methamphetamine by a parent and caregiver of children cannot be condoned, would constitute an indictable criminal offense and presents a danger to the children. However, an isolated incident of drug usage by a parent which did not appear to affect the children does not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the children are children are need of assistance as alleged in the State's Petition.
The State's petition was accordingly dismissed.
On appeal the State challenges the juvenile court's failure to adjudicate the children as children in need of assistance. The State argues that the record contains more than adequate proof to support adjudication and the juvenile court erred by concluding otherwise.
II. Standard of Review .
Our review of an action arising from CINA proceedings is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Of paramount concern is the welfare and best interest of the children. In re A.D.L., 497 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). We give weight to the fact findings of the juvenile court, especially when considering the credibility of the witnesses, but we are not bound by such findings. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g); In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d at 315. The State has the burden of proving the allegations in the CINA petition by clear and convincing evidence. Iowa Code § 232.96(2). Clear and convincing evidence means no serious or substantial doubt exists about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence. In re S.J.M., 539 N.W.2d 496, 500 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
III. The Merits .
The State's petition alleged that the children were in need of assistance as provided in the following code sections:
6. " Child in need of assistance" means an unmarried child:
. . .
b. Whose parent, guardian, other custodian, or other member of the household in which the child resides has physically abused or neglected the child, or is imminently likely to abuse or neglect the child.
c. Who has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of either of the following:
. . .
(2) The failure of the child's parent, guardian, custodian, or other member of the household in which the child resides to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child.
. . .
n. Whose parent's or guardian's mental capacity or condition, imprisonment, or drug or alcohol abuse results in the child not receiving adequate care.
Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(b), 6(c)(2), (6)(n).
Our de novo review leads to the same result reached at trial. The trial judge's finding that C.P.'s drug use was isolated clearly implicates his assessment of the parents' credibility. Because the trial judge's perspective on matters of credibility is superior to ours, we defer to his findings on this issue and will not interfere. In re Marriage of Bare, 203 N.W.2d 551, 554-55 (Iowa 1973). More importantly, however, we note the absence of significant evidence of observable harm to the children resulting from the parents' alleged drug abuse. The State concedes there is "no apparent evidence [the children] have been harmed by their mother's drug use." The parents fairly describe the State's contrary claims as "speculation, supposition, and conjecture." Aside from W.G.'s school absenteeism, the record indicates both children are reasonably happy and well adjusted. Because the State has not met its burden to prove the statutory grounds for adjudicating these children as children in need of assistance, we affirm the juvenile court's decision dismissing its petition.
AFFIRMED.