Opinion
No. 4-334 / 04-0429.
June 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, David C. Larson, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court's denial of her motion to modify a child in need of assistance dispositional order. AFFIRMED.
Pamela Wingert, Spirit Lake, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, and Rosalise Olson, County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Michael Johnson of Stoller Johnson, Spirit Lake, for maternal grandparents.
Shannon Sandy of Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Miller, JJ.
Jodi appeals the juvenile court's denial of her motion to modify a child in need of assistance (CINA) dispositional order to place her minor children, Jamie and Ashley, with their maternal grandparents. We affirm.
Jodi is the mother of two daughters, Jamie, born in April 1987, and Ashley, born in March 1990. Both were adjudicated CINA in May 2001, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(f) (2001) (child in need of treatment for serious mental illness or disorder or emotional damage and parent is unwilling or unable to provide treatment) and (m) (child in need of treatment for chemical dependency and parent unwilling or unable to provide treatment). Jamie was last removed from Jodi's custody in July 2001, and has thereafter remained in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), in various placements. Ashley was continued in Jodi's custody following adjudication, subject to protective supervision by the DHS. In August 2003 Ashely was removed from Jodi's custody and placed in the custody of the DHS. She has thereafter remained in DHS custody, in various placements.
As of November 2003 Jamie was in foster family care, but ran away. The juvenile court placed her in shelter care. On December 2 Jodi filed her motion to modify and place custody of both girls with Jodi's parents. The juvenile court scheduled a January 23, 2004 combined review hearing for both girls, permanency hearing for Jamie, and hearing on Jodi's motion. The DHS recommended Jamie be placed in the Iowa juvenile home and that Ashley be placed in a high-impact residential facility to be followed by family foster care. The court held the combined hearing on January 23. On February 27, 2004, it ordered that guardianship of Jamie be placed with the Director of the DHS for placement in the Iowa juvenile home. It separately ordered that Ashley's custody remain with the DHS for placement in a residential treatment facility.
Jodi appeals those parts of the juvenile court orders that denied her motion to modify the prior dispositional orders and place custody of the girls with her parents.
Our review of an action arising from CINA proceedings is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). We give weight to the fact findings of the juvenile court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by these findings. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g); In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d at 511.
Modification of a dispositional order is provided for in Iowa Code section 232.103 (2003). A party seeking modification of a custody provision of a prior dispositional order must prove the circumstances have so materially and substantially changed that the best interest of the child requires such a change in custody. In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d at 511.
On appeal Jodi asserts that relative placement is the least restrictive alternative consistent with the children's needs, separation of the siblings is not in their best interest, and the children should have been placed with her parents. For the following reasons we disagree.
Jamie has a lengthy history of mental problems and substance abuse, for which she has received lengthy and extensive services. She has had shelter care placements and foster family care placements. She has also had three separate placements in two different PMICs (psychiatric medical institution for children). Jamie has been diagnosed as suffering from all of the following: major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic; amphetamine dependence; cannibis dependence; alcohol dependence; and strong borderline traits, traits of avoidant personality.
Upon Jamie's last discharge from a PMIC on November 3, 2003, she was placed in family foster care with a family with whom she had previously been placed. She almost immediately began breaking established rules, and ran away when she learned the foster family was no longer willing to have her live in their home and be responsible for her. When she absconded she was at least briefly aided and abetted by her mother, Jodi, and by the maternal grandfather with whom Jodi would have the juvenile court place custody of the girls. The juvenile court found, in part, that Jamie's "mental health issues and substance abuse issues have not yet been adequately resolved to the point of being able to be successful at her grandparents' home in the long run." This finding is fully supported by the evidence, and we agree with it and adopt it as our own.
Ashley has a substantial history of mental or emotional problems, and of substance abuse problems. She too has received services but her problems continue. In late 2002 she was involuntarily hospitalized when exhibiting symptoms of depression and expressing suicidal ideations. After her hospitalization she returned to Jodi's custody. She has acknowledged smoking cigarettes at earlier ages but then regularly since becoming thirteen years of age, drinking alcohol every other weekend, and using marijuana regularly since age eleven.
In mid-August 2003 Ashley was found semi-coherent, vomiting, and unsupervised in an amusement park. She was taken to a hospital. Testing revealed she had used methamphetamine, opiates, and marijuana. Ashley was thereafter placed in shelter care and later placed in a high-impact residential program.
In addition to mental health and substance abuse issues, Ashley is viewed by involved professionals as lacking in coping skills, tending to minimize and avoid responsibility for her behaviors, having low self-esteem, feeling a need for acceptance of and association with inappropriate peers, and needing stability, structure, and supervision. She was not yet doing well, even in the highly structured residential program in which she had been placed. Rather than attempting to succeed she was unwilling or unable to accept norms and expectations, had not begun to take responsibility for her actions, made excuses and blamed others, and was rude and disrespectful to her peers and to staff. The juvenile court found, in part:
Although Ashley would like to return to her family and then address chemical dependency issues and coping skills, the court finds that in order for Ashley to be successful in a family setting, she must first address her issues and then return to a family setting.
This finding is fully supported by the evidence, and we agree with it and adopt it as our own.
Our primary concern in this proceeding is the best interests of the children, we consider their long-range as well as immediate interests, and the overwhelming bulk of the focus is on the children and their needs. In re D.S., C.S., L.S., and L.S., 563 N.W.2d 12, 14-15 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Jamie and Ashley each have numerous, serious problems which require not only numerous services but that such services be provided in settings that provide a great deal of structure and supervision. The necessary structure and supervision cannot presently be provided at home, in foster care, or in the home of their maternal grandparents. Jamie and Ashley are of different ages. Jamie's problems are largely ones of mental health and substance abuse. Ashley's problems include substance abuse, but also include numerous issues related to self-esteem, coping, and relationships. Their problems and needs are different and require different placements and services. We conclude Jodi has not proved that the children's best interest requires that they not be separated, and that she has not proved that changes which have occurred since the prior dispositional orders warrant or require the modifications which she seeks, placement of the girls together in the custody of her parents. We therefore affirm the juvenile court's denial of her motion to modify the prior dispositional orders in the manner she requests.